Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Perfusion Processing for Neuroradiologists: Model-dependent Analysis May Not Be Necessary for Determining Recurrent High-grade Glioma Versus Treatment Effect
Overview
Affiliations
Background And Purpose: Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging has proved useful in determining whether a contrast-enhancing lesion is secondary to recurrent glial tumor or is treatment-related. In this article, we explore the best method for dynamic contrast-enhanced data analysis.
Materials And Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 24 patients who met the following conditions: 1) had at least an initial treatment of a glioma, 2) underwent a half-dose contrast agent (0.05-mmol/kg) diagnostic-quality dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion study for an enhancing lesion, and 3) had a diagnosis by pathology within 30 days of imaging. The dynamic contrast-enhanced data were processed by using model-dependent analysis (nordicICE) using a 2-compartment model and model-independent signal intensity with time. Multiple methods of determining the vascular input function and numerous perfusion parameters were tested in comparison with a pathologic diagnosis.
Results: The best accuracy (88%) with good correlation compared with pathology (P = .005) was obtained by using a novel, model-independent signal-intensity measurement derived from a brief integration beginning after the initial washout and by using the vascular input function from the superior sagittal sinus for normalization. Modeled parameters, such as mean endothelial transfer constant > 0.05 minutes(-1), correlated (P = .002) but did not reach a diagnostic accuracy equivalent to the model-independent parameter.
Conclusions: A novel model-independent dynamic contrast-enhanced analysis method showed diagnostic equivalency to more complex model-dependent methods. Having a brief integration after the first pass of contrast may diminish the effects of partial volume macroscopic vessels and slow progressive enhancement characteristic of necrosis. The simple modeling is technique- and observer-dependent but is less time-consuming.
Malik D, Rath T, Urcuyo Acevedo J, Canoll P, Swanson K, Boxerman J Front Radiol. 2023; 2:809373.
PMID: 37492687 PMC: 10365126. DOI: 10.3389/fradi.2022.809373.
Nguyen T, Zakhari N, Velasco Sandoval S, Guarnizo-Capera A, Alexios Gulak M, Woulfe J AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2023; 44(2):134-142.
PMID: 36702501 PMC: 9891339. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7771.
Hwang I, Choi S, Kim J, Yeon E, Lee J, Yoo R Eur Radiol. 2022; 32(6):3734-3743.
PMID: 35084518 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08517-1.
Park J, Kim J, Kim H, Shim W AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2020; 41(11):2041-2048.
PMID: 33060100 PMC: 7658849. DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A6792.
Early imaging marker of progressing glioblastoma: a window of opportunity.
Gatson N, Bross S, Odia Y, Mongelluzzo G, Hu Y, Lockard L J Neurooncol. 2020; 148(3):629-640.
PMID: 32602020 DOI: 10.1007/s11060-020-03565-x.