Diagnostic Accuracy of Arterial Spin-Labeling, Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced, and DSC Perfusion Imaging in the Diagnosis of Recurrent High-Grade Gliomas: A Prospective Study

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Mullins ME,
   2. Barest GD,
   3. Schaefer PW, et al

   . Radiation necrosis versus glioma recurrence: conventional MR imaging clues to diagnosis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1967–72 pmid:16155144

   PubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. van Dijken BR,
   2. van Laar PJ,
   3. Holtman GA, et al

   . Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging techniques for treatment response evaluation in patients with high-grade glioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2017;27:4129–44 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4789-9 pmid:28332014

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   1. Wang L,
   2. Wei L,
   3. Wang J, et al

   . Evaluation of perfusion MRI value for tumor progression assessment after glioma radiotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99:e23766 doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000023766 pmid:33350761

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Wang YL,
   2. Chen S,
   3. Xiao HF, et al

   . Differentiation between radiation-induced brain injury and glioma recurrence using 3D pCASL and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging. Radiother Oncol 2018;129:68–74 doi:10.1016/j.radonc.2018.01.009 pmid:29398151

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   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
6. 6.↵
   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
7. 7.↵
   1. Alsop DC,
   2. Detre JA,
   3. Golay X, et al

   . Recommended implementation of arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI for clinical applications: a consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European consortium for ASL in dementia. Magn Reson Med 2015;73:102–16 doi:10.1002/mrm.25197 pmid:24715426

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Cron G,
   2. Gulak MA,
   3. Majtenyi N, et al

   . MOLLI versus SMART1 mapping for quantitative brain tumor DCE MRI on a 3T GE 750w: initial experience. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting and Exhibition of the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. May 16, 2019 (abstract 2903)
9. 9.↵
   1. Foottit C,
   2. Cron GO,
   3. Hogan MJ

   , et al. Determination of the venous output function from MR signal phase: feasibility for quantitative DCE-MRI in human brain. Magn Reson Med 2010;63:772–81 doi:10.1002/mrm.22253 pmid:20187184

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Zakhari N,
    2. Taccone MS,
    3. Torres C, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of centrally restricted diffusion in the differentiation of treatment-related necrosis from tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:260–64 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5485 pmid:29217742

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Mutsaerts HJ,
    2. Petr J,
    3. Václavů L, et al

    . The spatial coefficient of variation in arterial spin labeling cerebral blood flow images. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 2017;37:3184–92 doi:10.1177/0271678X16683690 pmid:28058975

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    1. Holm S

    . A simple sequentially rejective multiple test procedure. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics 1979;6:65–70

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. DeLong ER,
    2. DeLong DM,
    3. Clarke-Pearson DL

    . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45 doi:10.2307/2531595 pmid:3203132

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Manning P,
    2. Daghighi S,
    3. Rajaratnam MK, et al

    . Differentiation of progressive disease from pseudoprogression using 3D PCASL and DSC perfusion MRI in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol 2020;147:681–90 doi:10.1007/s11060-020-03475-y pmid:32239431

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    1. Jovanovic M,
    2. Radenkovic S,
    3. Stosic-Opincal T, et al

    . Differentiation between progression and pseudoprogresion by arterial spin labeling MRI in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J BUON 2017;22:1061–67 pmid:28952228

    PubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Okuchi S,
    2. Rojas-Garcia A,
    3. Ulyte A, et al

    . Diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in stratifying gliomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Med 2019;8:5564–73 doi:10.1002/cam4.2369 pmid:31389669

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    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
18. 18.↵
    1. Zakhari N,
    2. Taccone MS,
    3. Torres CH, et al

    . Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in treated high-grade gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;50:573–82 doi:10.1002/jmri.26621 pmid:30614146

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Bolcaen J,
    2. Descamps B,
    3. Acou M, et al

    . In vivo DCE-MRI for the discrimination between glioblastoma and radiation necrosis in rats. Mol Imaging Biol 2017;19:857–66 doi:10.1007/s11307-017-1071-0 pmid:28303489

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Bane O,
    2. Hectors SJ,
    3. Wagner M, et al

    . Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T₁ quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: results from a multicenter phantom study. Magn Reson Med 2018;79:2564–75 doi:10.1002/mrm.26903 pmid:28913930

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    1. Hamilton JD,
    2. Lin J,
    3. Ison C, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion processing for neuroradiologists: model-dependent analysis may not be necessary for determining recurrent high-grade glioma versus treatment effect. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:686–93 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4190 pmid:25500312

    Abstract/FREE Full Text