Differentiating Low-Grade from High-Grade Intracranial Ependymomas: Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Lombardi G,
   2. Della Puppa A,
   3. Pizzi M, et al

   . An overview of intracranial ependymomas in adults. Cancers (Basel) 2021;13:6128 doi:10.3390/cancers13236128 pmid:34885237

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   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
3. 3.↵
   1. Xing Z,
   2. Zhou X,
   3. Xiao Z, et al

   . Comparison of conventional, diffusion, and perfusion MRI between low-grade and anaplastic extraventricular ependymoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2020;215:978–84 doi:10.2214/AJR.20.22764 pmid:32809860

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Shuangshoti S,
   2. Rushing EJ,
   3. Mena H, et al

   . Supratentorial extraventricular ependymal neoplasms: a clinicopathologic study of 32 patients. Cancer 2005;103:2598–605 doi:10.1002/cncr.21111 pmid:15861411

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Sun S,
   2. Wang J,
   3. Zhu M, et al

   . Clinical, radiological, and histological features and treatment outcomes of supratentorial extraventricular ependymoma: 14 cases from a single center. J Neurosurg 2018;128:1396–402 doi:10.3171/2017.1.JNS161422 pmid:28686116

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   1. Oya N,
   2. Shibamoto Y,
   3. Nagata Y, et al

   . Postoperative radiotherapy for intracranial ependymoma: analysis of prognostic factors and patterns of failure. J Neurooncol 2002;56:87–94 doi:10.1023/a:1014442106111 pmid:11949831

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   1. Xianwang L,
   2. Lei H,
   3. Hong L, et al

   . Apparent diffusion coefficient to evaluate adult intracranial ependymomas: relationship to Ki-67 proliferation index. J Neuroimaging 2021;31:132–36 doi:10.1111/jon.12789 pmid:32961009

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Gupta PK,
   2. Saini J,
   3. Sahoo P, et al

   . Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in grading of pediatric brain tumors on 3T. Pediatr Neurosurg 2017;52:298–305 doi:10.1159/000479283 pmid:28848203

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Arevalo-Perez J,
   2. Peck KK,
   3. Young RJ, et al

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in grading of gliomas. J Neuroimaging 2015;25:792–98 doi:10.1111/jon.12239 pmid:25867683

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Vajapeyam S,
    2. Brown D,
    3. Johnston PR, et al

    . Multiparametric analysis of permeability and ADC histogram metrics for classification of pediatric brain tumors by tumor grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2018;39:552–57 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5502 pmid:29301780

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Nam JG,
    2. Kang KM,
    3. Choi SH, et al

    . Comparison between the prebolus T1 measurement and the fixed T1 value in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:2243–50 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5417 pmid:29074633

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Conte GM,
    2. Altabella L,
    3. Castellano A, et al

    . Comparison of T1 mapping and fixed T1 method for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion in brain gliomas. Eur Radiol 2019;29:3467–79 doi:10.1007/s00330-019-06122-x pmid:30972545

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Tofts PS,
    2. Brix G,
    3. Buckley DL, et al

    . Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:223–32 doi:10.1002/(SICI)1522-2586(199909)10:3<223::AID-JMRI2>3.0.CO;2-S pmid:10508281

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Hilario A,
    2. Ramos A,
    3. Perez-Nunez A, et al

    . The added value of apparent diffusion coefficient to cerebral blood volume in the preoperative grading of diffuse gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:701–07 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2846 pmid:22207304

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Santarosa C,
    2. Castellano A,
    3. Conte GM, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging for glioma grading: preliminary comparison of vessel compartment and permeability parameters using hotspot and histogram analysis. Eur J Radiology 2016;85:1147–56 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.03.020 pmid:27161065

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    1. Calli C,
    2. Kitis O,
    3. Yunten N, et al

    . Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiol 2006;58:394–403 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2005.12.032 pmid:16527438

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Kono K,
    2. Inoue Y,
    3. Nakayama K, et al

    . The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22:1081–88 pmid:11415902

    PubMedWeb of Science
18. 18.↵
    1. Lee EJ,
    2. Lee SK,
    3. Agid R, et al

    . Preoperative grading of presumptive low-grade astrocytomas on MR imaging: diagnostic value of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1872–77 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1254 pmid:18719036

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    1. Kim HS,
    2. Kim SY

    . A prospective study on the added value of pulsed arterial spin-labeling and apparent diffusion coefficients in the grading of gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:1693–99 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0674 pmid:17885229

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Vajapeyam S,
    2. Stamoulis C,
    3. Ricci K, et al

    . Automated processing of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: correlation of advanced pharmacokinetic metrics with tumor grade in pediatric brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2017;38:170–75 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4949 pmid:27633807

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Cha S,
    2. Johnson G,
    3. Wadghiri YZ, et al

    . Dynamic, contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI in mouse gliomas: correlation with histopathology. Magn Reson Med 2003;49:848–55 doi:10.1002/mrm.10446 pmid:12704767

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Maia AC, Jr.,
    2. Malheiros SM,
    3. da Rocha AJ, et al

    . MR cerebral blood volume maps correlated with vascular endothelial growth factor expression and tumor grade in nonenhancing gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:777–83 pmid:15814920

    PubMedWeb of Science
23. 23.↵
    1. Aronen HJ,
    2. Gazit IE,
    3. Louis DN, et al

    . Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. Radiology 1994;191:41–51 doi:10.1148/radiology.191.1.8134596 pmid:8134596

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
24. 24.↵
    1. Aronen HJ,
    2. Pardo FS,
    3. Kennedy DN, et al

    . High microvascular blood volume is associated with high glucose uptake and tumor angiogenesis in human gliomas. Clin Cancer Res 2000;6:2189–200 pmid:10873068

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
25. 25.↵
    1. Sugahara T,
    2. Korogi Y,
    3. Kochi M, et al

    . Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1479–86 doi:10.2214/ajr.171.6.9843274 pmid:9843274

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
26. 26.↵
    1. Arevalo-Perez J,
    2. Kebede AA,
    3. Peck KK, et al

    . Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in low-grade versus anaplastic oligodendrogliomas. J Neuroimaging 2016;26:366–71 doi:10.1111/jon.12320 pmid:26707628

    CrossRefPubMed
27. 27.↵
    1. Wu J,
    2. Armstrong TS,
    3. Gilbert MR

    . Biology and management of ependymomas. Neuro Oncol 2016;18:902–13 doi:10.1093/neuonc/now016 pmid:27022130

    CrossRefPubMed
28. 28.↵
    1. Ellingson BM,
    2. Zaw T,
    3. Cloughesy TF, et al

    . Comparison between intensity normalization techniques for dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC)-MRI estimates of cerebral blood volume (CBV) in human gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;35:1472–77 doi:10.1002/jmri.23600 pmid:22281731

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    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

    PubMedWeb of Science
30. 30.↵
    1. Boxerman JL,
    2. Prah DE,
    3. Paulson ES, et al

    . The role of preload and leakage correction in gadolinium-based cerebral blood volume estimation determined by comparison with MION as a criterion standard. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2012;33:1081–87 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A2934 pmid:22322605

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    1. Hacklander T,
    2. Reichenbach JR,
    3. Modder U

    . Comparison of cerebral blood volume measurements using the T1 and T2* methods in normal human brains and brain tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997;21:857–66 doi:10.1097/00004728-199711000-00003 pmid:9386273

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    1. Lee J,
    2. Choi SH,
    3. Kim JH, et al

    . Glioma grading using apparent diffusion coefficient map: application of histogram analysis based on automatic segmentation. NMR Biomed 2014;27:1046–52 doi:10.1002/nbm.3153 pmid:25042540

    CrossRefPubMed