Diagnostic Accuracy of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging Using a Phase-Derived Vascular Input Function in the Preoperative Grading of Gliomas

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Law M,
   2. Yang S,
   3. Wang H,
   4. 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

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
2. 2.↵
   1. Verheul HM,
   2. Voest EE,
   3. Schlingermann RO

   . Are tumours angiogenesis-dependent? J Pathol 2004; 202: 5– 13

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
3. 3.↵
   1. Ludemann L,
   2. Warmuth C,
   3. Plotkin M,
   4. et al

   . Brain tumor perfusion. Comparison of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using T1, T2 and T2* contrast, pulsed arterial spin labeling, and H₂¹⁵O positron emission tomography. Eur J Radiol 2009; 70: 465– 74

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Brix G,
   2. Griebel J,
   3. Kiessling F,
   4. et al

   . Tracer kinetic modelling of tumour angiogenesis based on dynamic contrast-enhanced CT and MRI measurements. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2010; 37 (suppl 1): S30– 51

   CrossRef
5. 5.↵
   1. Cron GO,
   2. Kelcz F,
   3. Santyr GE

   . Improvement in breast lesion characterization with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI using pharmacokinetic modeling and bookend T(1) measurements. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51: 1066– 70

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   1. Patankar TF,
   2. Haroon HA,
   3. Mills SJ,
   4. et al

   . Is volume transfer coefficient (Ktrans) related to histologic grade in human gliomas? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26: 2455– 65

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
7. 7.↵
   1. Donahue KM,
   2. Weiskoff RM,
   3. Burstein D,
   4. et al

   . Diffusion and exchange as they influence contrast enhancement. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 102– 10

   PubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Foottit C,
   2. Cron GO,
   3. Hogan MJ,
   4. 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

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   1. Cron GO,
   2. Foottit C,
   3. Yankeelov TE,
   4. et al

   . Arterial input functions determined from MR signal magnitude and phase for quantitative DCE-MRI in the human pelvis. Magn Reson Med 2011; 66: 498– 504

   CrossRefPubMed
10. 10.↵
    1. Weisskoff RM,
    2. Zuo CS,
    3. Boxerman JL,
    4. et al

    . Microscopic susceptibility variation and transverse relaxation: theory and experiment. Magn Reson Med 1994; 31: 601– 10

    PubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    1. Roberts HC,
    2. Roberts TPL,
    3. Brasch RC,
    4. et al

    . Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2000; 21: 891– 99

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Calamante F,
    2. Vonken E,
    3. van Osch MJP

    . Contrast agent concentration measurements affecting quantification of bolus-tracking perfusion MRI. Magn Reson Med 2007; 58: 544– 53

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    1. Mangla R,
    2. Kolar B,
    3. Zhu T,
    4. et al

    . Percentage signal recovery derived from MR dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging is useful to differentiate common enhancing malignant lesions of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 1004– 10

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
14. 14.↵
    1. Hu LS,
    2. Baxter LC,
    3. Pinnaduwage DS,
    4. et al

    . Optimized preload leakage-correction methods to improve the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in posttreatment gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31: 40– 48

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
15. 15.↵
    1. Kim J,
    2. Seethamraju RT,
    3. Suh JY,
    4. et al

    . R1 and R2* changes according to Gd concentration: a potential limiting factor in converting MR signal intensity to Gd concentration. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 6–13, 2011
16. 16.↵
    1. Sourbron S,
    2. Ingrisch M,
    3. Siefert A,
    4. et al

    . Quantification of cerebral blood flow, cerebral blood volume and blood-brain-barrier leakage with DCE-MRI. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62: 205– 17

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    1. Kim YR,
    2. Rebro KJ,
    3. Schmainda KM

    . Water exchange and inflow affect the accuracy of T₁-GRE blood volume measurements: implications for the evaluation of tumor angiogenesis. Magn Reson Med 2002; 47: 1110– 20

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. de Bruin PW,
    2. Versluis MJ,
    3. Yusuf E,
    4. et al

    . Arterial input functions in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: magnitude versus phase. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 6–13, 2011
19. 19.↵
    1. Song HK,
    2. Xue Y,
    3. Yu J,
    4. et al

    . Comparison of the standard gadolinium concentration and signal difference methodologies for computation of perfusion parameters in DCE-MRI at various SNRs. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, Montreal, Quebec, Canada; May 6–13, 2011
20. 20.↵
    1. Ott RJ,
    2. Brada M,
    3. Flower MA,
    4. et al

    . Measurements of blood-brain barrier permeability in patients undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy for primary cerebral lymphoma. Eur J Cancer 1991; 27: 1356– 61

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    1. Tofts PS

    . Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1997; 7: 91– 101

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    1. Tofts PS,
    2. Brix G,
    3. Buckley DL,
    4. 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

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science