Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate whether estimates of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) in brain tumors, obtained by using dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging vary with choice of data acquisition and postprocessing methods.


METHODS
Four acquisition methods were used to collect data in 22 high-grade glioma patients, with informed written consent under HIPAA-compliant guidelines approved by the institutional review board. During bolus administration of a standard single dose of gadolinium-based contrast agent (0.1 mmol per kilogram of body weight), one of three acquisition methods was used: gradient-echo (GRE) echo-planar imaging (echo time [TE], 30 msec; flip angle, 90 degrees ; n = 10), small-flip-angle GRE echo-planar imaging (TE, 54 msec; flip angle, 35 degrees ; n = 7), or dual-echo GRE spiral-out imaging (TE, 3.3 and 30 msec; flip angle, 72 degrees ; n = 5). Next, GRE echo-planar imaging (TE, 30 msec; flip angle, 90 degrees ; n = 22) was used to collect data during administration of a second dose of contrast agent (0.2 mmol/kg). Subsequently, six methods of analysis were used to calculate rCBV. Mean rCBV values from whole tumor, tumor hot spots, and contralateral brain were normalized to mean rCBV in normal-appearing white matter.


RESULTS
Friedman two-way analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance results indicated that qualitative rCBV values were dependent on acquisition and postprocessing methods for both tumor and contralateral brain. By using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test, a consistently positive (greater than zero) tumor-contralateral brain rCBV ratio resulted when either the preload-postprocessing correction approach or dual-echo acquisition approach (P < .008 for both methods) was used.


CONCLUSIONS
The dependence of tumor rCBV on the choice of acquisition and postprocessing methods is caused by their varying sensitivities to T1 and T2 and/or T2* leakage effects. The preload-correction approach and dual-echo acquisition approach are the most robust choices for the evaluation of brain tumors when the possibility of contrast agent extravasation exists.
Paulson
Eric S
ES
Department of Biophysics, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.
Schmainda
Kathleen M
KM
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001810:Blood Volume; D001932:Brain Neoplasms / Q000098:blood supply*; D002560:Cerebrovascular Circulation; D003287:Contrast Media; D005260:Female; D019786:Gadolinium DTPA; D005910:Glioma / Q000098:blood supply*; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging / Q000379:methods*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric
D003287:Contrast Media; C064925:gadodiamide; D019786:Gadolinium DTPA
Br J Radiol. 2004;77 Spec No 2:S154-66
15677357
N Engl J Med. 2004 Jun 3;350(23):2335-42
15175435
Radiology. 1993 Oct;189(1):233-8
8372199
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Mar;29(3):419-24
18272557
Magn Reson Med. 1990 Jun;14(3):538-46
2355835
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Jun;43(6):820-7
10861876
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Apr;27(4):859-67
16611779
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Jun;53(6):1307-16
15906288
Magn Reson Med. 1990 May;14(2):249-65
2345506
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Aug;22(7):1306-15
11498419
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 May;25(5):746-55
15140713
J Neurooncol. 2006 Aug;79(1):19-30
16807783
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Feb;11(2):114-9
10713942
J Clin Oncol. 2007 Oct 20;25(30):4722-9
17947719
Magn Reson Med. 2004 May;51(5):961-8
15122678
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005 Jun;21(6):683-93
15906330
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1996 May;17(5):831-40
8733954
Cancer Treat Res. 2004;117:79-95
15015553
Oncologist. 2004;9 Suppl 1:27-35
15178813
Cancer Cell. 2007 Jan;11(1):83-95
17222792
Radiology. 2002 Apr;223(1):11-29
11930044
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 May;21(5):881-90
10815664
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Jan-Feb;7(1):230-5
9039621
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 1993 Winter;5(1):14-24
8416685
Magn Reson Med. 2002 May;47(5):973-81
11979577
Radiology. 1994 Apr;191(1):41-51
8134596
J Neurooncol. 2000 Oct-Nov;50(1-2):165-72
11245275
Radiology. 2008 Apr;247(1):170-8
18372467
Korean J Radiol. 2002 Jul-Sep;3(3):171-9
12271162
J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 May-Jun;7(3):528-37
9170038
Comput Biomed Res. 1996 Jun;29(3):162-73
8812068
Clin Cancer Res. 2000 Jun;6(6):2189-200
10873068
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 May;21(5):901-9
10815666
Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;15(3):307-17
9201678
Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Jan;17(1):21-7
9888395
Magn Reson Med. 2000 Jun;43(6):845-53
10861879
Radiology. 2006 Feb;238(2):658-67
16396838
J Neurosurg. 1997 Jan;86(1):22-7
8988077
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2001 Oct 1;51(2):478-82
11567824
Clin Radiol. 2005 Apr;60(4):493-502
15767107
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004 Oct;25(9):1524-32
15502131
Top Magn Reson Imaging. 2004 Oct;15(5):279-89
15627003
Neurology. 2008 Mar 4;70(10):779-87
18316689
Cancer. 1996 Jan 15;77(2):362-72
8625246
Radiology. 1999 Jun;211(3):791-8
10352608
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000 Sep;12(3):411-6
10992308