Percentage Signal Recovery Derived from MR Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Imaging Is Useful to Differentiate Common Enhancing Malignant Lesions of the Brain

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Differentiation of enhancing malignant lesions on conventional MR imaging can be difficult and various newer imaging techniques have been suggested. Our aim was to evaluate the role of PSR obtained from DSC perfusion measurements in differentiating lymphoma, GBM, and metastases. The effectiveness of PSR was compared with that of rCBV. We hypothesized that the newly defined parameter of PSR is more sensitive and specific in differentiating these lesions.

Differentiation of Primary Central Nervous System Lymphomas and Glioblastomas: Comparisons of Diagnostic Performance of Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced Perfusion MR Imaging without and with Contrast-Leakage Correction

“…The signal-intensity time curve of DSC perfusion MR imaging can also be described with percentage of signal recovery, 12,23 which represents the percentage of signal-intensity recovery at the end of the first pass and can be calculated without complex modeling or a sophisticated leakage-correction algorithm. The percentage of signal recovery can be measured simply by moving the region of interest within the tumors on a workstation.…”

“…[3][4][5] On DSC perfusion MR imaging, PCNSLs demonstrate lower CBV compared with glioblastomas. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] In lesions with substantial BBB breakdown and contrast leakage, the T2*-weighted signal-intensity loss can be masked by signal-intensity increase secondary to T1 effects. In such instances, CBV will be underestimated.…”

“…[17][18][19] Their low CBV and the characteristic intensity-time curve that went above the baseline were thought to be related to high vascular permeability. 8,12 To the best of our knowledge, PCNSLs have never been studied with DSC perfusion MR imaging processed with the mathematic leakage-correction model. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Their corrected CBV and K 2 have also not been quantitatively compared with those of glioblastomas.…”

“…8,12 To the best of our knowledge, PCNSLs have never been studied with DSC perfusion MR imaging processed with the mathematic leakage-correction model. [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Their corrected CBV and K 2 have also not been quantitatively compared with those of glioblastomas. In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of DSC perfusion MR imaging without and with mathematic leakage correction in the differentiation of PCNSL and glioblastoma.…”

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

“…1,11 However, CBV measurements from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced require correction for leakage in areas of bloodbrain disruption in tumors and are prone to susceptibility artifacts arising from hemorrhage, calcification, or bone. [12][13][14] DCE MR imaging is a T1-weighted technique, which is, as a consequence, less sensitive to susceptibility artifacts. It has been introduced more recently to quantify the absolute plasma volume and the volume transfer coefficient, which measures the degree of contrast leakage from the intravascular to the extravascular compartment.…”