» Articles » PMID: 25500312

Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Perfusion Processing for Neuroradiologists: Model-dependent Analysis May Not Be Necessary for Determining Recurrent High-grade Glioma Versus Treatment Effect

Overview
Specialty Neurology
Date 2014 Dec 16
PMID 25500312
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

Citing Articles

Advanced MRI Protocols to Discriminate Glioma From Treatment Effects: State of the Art and Future Directions.

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.


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

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.


Response prediction of vestibular schwannoma after gamma-knife radiosurgery using pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: a prospective study.

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.


Comparison of Dynamic Contrast-Enhancement Parameters between Gadobutrol and Gadoterate Meglumine in Posttreatment Glioma: A Prospective Intraindividual Study.

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.


References
1.
Ostrom Q, Gittleman H, Liao P, Rouse C, Chen Y, Dowling J . CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007-2011. Neuro Oncol. 2014; 16 Suppl 4:iv1-63. PMC: 4193675. DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/nou223. View

2.
Levin V, Bidaut L, Hou P, Kumar A, Wefel J, Bekele B . Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of bevacizumab therapy for radiation necrosis of the central nervous system. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 79(5):1487-95. PMC: 2908725. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2009.12.061. View

3.
Murase K, Yamazaki Y, Miyazaki S . Deconvolution analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced data based on singular value decomposition optimized by generalized cross validation. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2005; 3(4):165-75. DOI: 10.2463/mrms.3.165. View

4.
Yang I, Aghi M . New advances that enable identification of glioblastoma recurrence. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2009; 6(11):648-57. DOI: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2009.150. View

5.
Ballman K, Buckner J, Brown P, Giannini C, Flynn P, LaPlant B . The relationship between six-month progression-free survival and 12-month overall survival end points for phase II trials in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. Neuro Oncol. 2006; 9(1):29-38. PMC: 1828103. DOI: 10.1215/15228517-2006-025. View