Effects of Susceptibility Artifacts on Perfusion MRI in Patients with Primary Brain Tumor: A Comparison of Arterial Spin-Labeling versus DSC

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Kimura M,
   2. da Cruz LC Jr..

   Multiparametric MR imaging in the assessment of brain tumors. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2016;24:87–122 doi:10.1016/j.mric.2015.09.001 pmid:26613877

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   1. Heo YJ,
   2. Kim HS,
   3. Park JE, et al

   . Uninterpretable dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR images in patients with post-treatment glioblastomas: cross-validation of alternative imaging options. PLoS One 2015;10:e0136380 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0136380 pmid:26296086

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Law M,
   2. Yang S,
   3. Wang H, et al

   . Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:1989–98 pmid:14625221

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
4. 4.↵
   1. Knopp EA,
   2. Cha S,
   3. Johnson G, et al

   . Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 1999;211:791–98 doi:10.1148/radiology.211.3.r99jn46791 pmid:10352608

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   1. Ata ES,
   2. Turgut M,
   3. Eraslan C, et al

   . Comparison between dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging and arterial spin labeling techniques in distinguishing malignant from benign brain tumors. Eur J Radiol 2016;85:1545–53 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.05.015 pmid:27501887

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Louis DN,
   2. Perry A,
   3. Reifenberger G, et al

   . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Hu LS,
   2. Baxter LC,
   3. Smith KA, et al

   . Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–58 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1377 pmid:19056837

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
8. 8.↵
   1. Aksoy FG,
   2. Lev MH

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced brain perfusion imaging: technique and clinical applications. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:462–77 doi:10.1016/S0887-2171(00)90038-6 pmid:11138635

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
9. 9.↵
   1. Lev MH,
   2. Ozsunar Y,
   3. Henson JW, et al

   . Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas [corrected]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:214–21 pmid:14970020

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
10. 10.↵
    1. Xu Q,
    2. Liu Q,
    3. Ge H, et al

    . Tumor recurrence versus treatment effects in glioma: a comparative study of three-dimensional pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging. Medicine (Baltimore) 2017;96:e9332 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000009332 pmid:29390403

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    1. Kimura H,
    2. Takeuchi H,
    3. Koshimoto Y, et al

    . Perfusion imaging of meningioma by using continuous arterial spin-labeling: comparison with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images and histopathologic features. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:85–93 pmid:16418363

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Warmuth C,
    2. Gunther M,
    3. Zimmer C

    . Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2003;228:523–32 doi:10.1148/radiol.2282020409 pmid:12819338

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. Weber MA,
    2. Thilmann C,
    3. Lichy MP, et al

    . Assessment of irradiated brain metastases by means of arterial spin-labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: initial results. Invest Radiol 2004;39:277–87 doi:10.1097/01.rli.0000119195.50515.04 pmid:15087722

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    1. Ozsunar Y,
    2. Mullins ME,
    3. Kwong K, et al

    . Glioma recurrence versus radiation necrosis? A pilot comparison of arterial spin-labeled, dynamic susceptibility contrast enhanced MRI, and FDG-PET imaging. Acad Radiol 2010;17:282–90 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2009.10.024 pmid:20060750

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Asllani I,
    2. Borogovac A,
    3. Brown TR

    . Regression algorithm correcting for partial volume effects in arterial spin-labeling MRI. Magn Reson Med 2008;60:1362–71 doi:10.1002/mrm.21670 pmid:18828149

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Fazlollahi A,
    2. Bourgeat P,
    3. Liang X, et al

    . Reproducibility of multiphase pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling and the effect of post-processing analysis methods. Neuroimage 2015;117:191–201 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.048 pmid:26026814

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Wu B,
    2. Lou X,
    3. Wu X, et al

    . Intra- and interscanner reliability and reproducibility of 3D whole-brain pseudo-continuous arterial spin-labeling MR perfusion at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;39:402–09 doi:10.1002/jmri.24175 pmid:23723043

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Ma H,
    2. Wang Z,
    3. Xu K, et al

    . Three-dimensional arterial spin labeling imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted imaging value in diagnosing glioma grade prior to surgery. Exp Ther Med 2017;13:2691–98 doi:10.3892/etm.2017.4370 pmid:28587332

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Choi YJ,
    2. Kim HS,
    3. Jahng GH, et al

    . Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol 2013;54:448–54 doi:10.1177/0284185112474916 pmid:23592805

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Seeger A,
    2. Braun C,
    3. Skardelly M, et al

    . Comparison of three different MR perfusion techniques and MR spectroscopy for multiparametric assessment in distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from stable disease. Acad Radiol 2013;20:1557–65 doi:10.1016/j.acra.2013.09.003 pmid:24200483

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Cebeci H,
    2. Aydin O,
    3. Ozturk-Isik E, et al

    . Assessment of perfusion in glial tumors with arterial spin labeling; comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast method. Eur J Radiol 2014;83:1914–19 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.07.002 pmid:25087109

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Schmainda KM,
    3. Weisskoff RM

    . Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:859–67 pmid:16611779

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
23. 23.↵
    1. Pollock JM,
    2. Tan H,
    3. Kraft RA, et al

    . Arterial spin-labeled MR perfusion imaging: clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2009;17:315–38 doi:10.1016/j.mric.2009.01.008 pmid:19406361

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    1. Yan L,
    2. Li C,
    3. Kilroy E, et al

    . Quantification of arterial cerebral blood volume using multiphase-balanced SSFP-based ASL. Magn Reson Med 2012;68:130–39 doi:10.1002/mrm.23218 pmid:22127983

    CrossRefPubMed