Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 9, pp 3819–3831 | Cite as

Perfusion MRI as a diagnostic biomarker for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Chong Hyun Suh
  • Ho Sung Kim
  • Seung Chai Jung
  • Choong Gon Choi
  • Sang Joon Kim
Neuro
  • 184 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

Differentiation of glioma from brain metastasis is clinically crucial because it affects the clinical outcome of patients and alters patient management. Here, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available data on perfusion magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis, assessing MRI protocols and parameters.

Methods

A computerised search of Ovid-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases was performed up to 3 October 2017, to find studies on the diagnostic performance of perfusion MRI for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were obtained using hierarchical logistic regression modelling. We conducted meta-regression and subgroup analyses to explain the effects of the study heterogeneity.

Results

Eighteen studies with 900 patients were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90% (95% CI, 84–94%) and 91% (95% CI, 84–95%), respectively. The area under the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.96 (95% CI, 0.94–0.98). The meta-regression showed that the percentage of glioma in the study population and the study design were significant factors affecting study heterogeneity. In a subgroup analysis including patients with glioblastoma only, the pooled sensitivity was 92% (95% CI, 84–97%) and the pooled specificity was 94% (95% CI, 85–98%).

Conclusions

Although various perfusion MRI techniques were used, the current evidence supports the use of perfusion MRI to differentiate glioma from brain metastasis. In particular, perfusion MRI showed excellent diagnostic performance for differentiating glioblastoma from brain metastasis.

Key Points

• Perfusion MRI shows high diagnostic performance for differentiating glioma from brain metastasis.

• The pooled sensitivity was 90% and pooled specificity was 91%.

• Peritumoral rCBV derived from DSC is a relatively well-validated.

Keywords

Glioblastoma Glioma Metastasis Magnetic resonance imaging Perfusion 

Abbreviations

ASL

Arterial spin labelling

AUROC

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

DCE

Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging

DSC

Dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced imaging

HSROC

Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic

IAUC

Initial area under the curve

QUADAS-2

Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies-2

rCBF

Relative cerebral blood flow

rCBV

Relative cerebral blood volume

Notes

Funding

This study was supported by a grant from the National R&D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea (1720030).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Ho Sung Kim.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors (Chong Hyun Suh) has significant statistical expertise (4 years of experience in a systematic review and meta-analysis).

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because of the nature of our study, which was a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because of the nature of our study, which was a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Methodology

• A systemic review and meta-analysis performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Giese A, Westphal M (2001) Treatment of malignant glioma: a problem beyond the margins of resection. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 127:217–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wesseling P, Ruiter DJ, Burger PC (1997) Angiogenesis in brain tumors; pathobiological and clinical aspects. J Neurooncol 32:253–265CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Long DM (1979) Capillary ultrastructure in human metastatic brain tumors. J Neurosurg 51:53–58CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Watanabe M, Tanaka R, Takeda N (1992) Magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology of cerebral gliomas. Neuroradiology 34:463–469CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strugar J, Rothbart D, Harrington W, Criscuolo GR (1994) Vascular permeability factor in brain metastases: correlation with vasogenic brain edema and tumor angiogenesis. J Neurosurg 81:560–566CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bauer AH, Erly W, Moser FG, Maya M, Nael K (2015) Differentiation of solitary brain metastasis from glioblastoma multiforme: a predictive multiparametric approach using combined MR diffusion and perfusion. Neuroradiology 57:697–703CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blasel S, Jurcoane A, Franz K, Morawe G, Pellikan S, Hattingen E (2010) Elevated peritumoural rCBV values as a mean to differentiate metastases from high-grade gliomas. Acta Neurochir 152:1893–1899CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bulakbasi N, Kocaoglu M, Farzaliyev A, Tayfun C, Ucoz T, Somuncu I (2005) Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of perfusion MR imaging in primary and metastatic solitary malignant brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 26:2187–2199PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cha S, Lupo JM, Chen MH et al (2007) Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28:1078–1084CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chen R, Wang S, Poptani H, Melhem ER, Herskovits EH (2013) A Bayesian diagnostic system to differentiate glioblastomas from solitary brain metastases. Neuroradiol J 26:175–183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ganbold M, Harada M, Khashbat D, Abe T, Kageji T, Nagahiro S (2017) Differences in high-intensity signal volume between arterial spin labeling and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging may be useful for differentiating glioblastoma from brain metastasis. J Med Invest 64:58–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hakyemez B, Erdogan C, Gokalp G, Dusak A, Parlak M (2010) Solitary metastases and high-grade gliomas: radiological differentiation by morphometric analysis and perfusion-weighted MRI. Clin Radiol 65:15–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin L, Xue Y, Duan Q et al (2016) The role of cerebral blood flow gradient in peritumoral edema for differentiation of glioblastomas from solitary metastatic lesions. Oncotarget 7:69051–69059PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ma JH, Kim HS, Rim NJ, Kim SH, Cho KG (2010) Differentiation among glioblastoma multiforme, solitary metastatic tumor, and lymphoma using whole-tumor histogram analysis of the normalized cerebral blood volume in enhancing and perienhancing lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31:1699–1706CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mouthuy N, Cosnard G, Abarca-Quinones J, Michoux N (2012) Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to differentiate high-grade gliomas and brain metastases. J Neuroradiol 39:301–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Server A, Orheim TE, Graff BA, Josefsen R, Kumar T, Nakstad PH (2011) Diagnostic examination performance by using microvascular leakage, cerebral blood volume, and blood flow derived from 3-T dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in the differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and brain metastasis. Neuroradiology 53:319–330CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sparacia G, Gadde JA, Iaia A, Sparacia B, Midiri M (2016) Usefulness of quantitative peritumoural perfusion and proton spectroscopic magnetic resonance imaging evaluation in differentiating brain gliomas from solitary brain metastases. Neuroradiol J 29:160–167CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sunwoo L, Yun TJ, You SH et al (2016) Differentiation of glioblastoma from brain metastasis: qualitative and quantitative analysis using arterial spin labeling MR imaging. PLoS One 11:e0166662CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsougos I, Svolos P, Kousi E et al (2012) Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from metastatic brain tumor using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 12:423–436CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Weber MA, Zoubaa S, Schlieter M et al (2006) Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors. Neurology 66:1899–1906CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Young GS, Setayesh K (2009) Spin-echo echo-planar perfusion MR imaging in the differential diagnosis of solitary enhancing brain lesions: distinguishing solitary metastases from primary glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 30:575–577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhang H, Rodiger LA, Zhang G, Oudkerk M (2009) Differentiation between supratentorial single brain metastases and high grade astrocytic tumors: an evaluation of different DSC MRI Measurements. Neuroradiol J 22:369–377CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zhao J, Yang ZY, Luo BN, Yang JY, Chu JP (2015) Quantitative evaluation of diffusion and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR in tumor parenchyma and peritumoral area for distinction of brain tumors. PLoS One 10:e0138573CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151:W65–W94CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155:529–536CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Higgins J, Green S Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. http:// handbook.cochrane.org/chapter_9/9_5_2_ identifying_and_measuring_heterogeneity. htm. Updated March 2011. Accessed 2 October 2017
  27. 27.
    Deville WL, Buntinx F, Bouter LM et al (2002) Conducting systematic reviews of diagnostic studies: didactic guidelines. BMC Med Res Methodol 2:9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Suh CH, Park SH (2016) Successful publication of systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy. Korean J Radiol 17:5–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers—Part I. General guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol 16:1175–1187CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, Huh J, Park SH (2015) Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: a practical review for clinical researchers—Part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol 16:1188–1196CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L (2005) The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 58:882–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abe T, Mizobuchi Y, Sako W et al (2015) Clinical significance of discrepancy between arterial spin labeling images and contrast-enhanced images in the diagnosis of brain tumors. Magn Reson Med Sci 14:313–319CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aprile I, Armadori M, Conti G, Ottaviano I, Ranaldi A, Ottaviano P (2008) MR perfusion imaging of intracranial tumors: a retrospective study of 218 patients. Neuroradiology Journal 21:472–489CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Aprile I, Roscetti M, Giulianelli G, Muti M, Ottaviano P (2007) Cerebral MR perfusion imaging analysis of peritumoral tissue. Neuroradiol J 20:656–661CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bazyar S, Ramalho J, Eldeniz C, An H, Lee YZ (2016) Comparison of cerebral blood volume and plasma volume in untreated intracranial tumors. PLoS One 11:e0161807CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bendini M, Marton E, Feletti A et al (2011) Primary and metastatic intraaxial brain tumors: prospective comparison of multivoxel 2D chemical-shift imaging (CSI) proton MR spectroscopy, perfusion MRI, and histopathological findings in a group of 159 patients. Acta Neurochir 153:403–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Calli C, Kitis O, Yunten N, Yurtseven T, Islekel S, Akalin T (2006) Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors. Eur J Radiol 58:394–403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chiang IC, Kuo YT, Lu CY et al (2004) Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imagings. Neuroradiology 46:619–627CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Cho SK, Na DG, Ryoo JW et al (2002) Perfusion MR imaging: clinical utility for the differential diagnosis of various brain tumors. Korean J Radiol 3:171–179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chu JP, Mak HK, Yau KK et al (2012) Pilot study on evaluation of any correlation between MR perfusion (Ktrans) and diffusion (apparent diffusion coefficient) parameters in brain tumors at 3 Tesla. Cancer Imaging 12:1–6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gaudino S, Di Lella GM, Russo R et al (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging of solitary brain metastases: main findings of nonmorphological sequences. Radiol Med 117:1225–1241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jiang J, Zhao L, Zhang Y et al (2014) Comparative analysis of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging for quantitative perfusion measurements of brain tumors. Int J Clin Exp Pathol 7:2790–2799PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jung BC, Arevalo-Perez J, Lyo JK et al (2016) Comparison of glioblastomas and brain metastases using dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI. J Neuroimaging 26:240–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Kremer S, Grand S, Berger F et al (2003) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: differentiating melanoma and renal carcinoma metastases from high-grade astrocytomas and other metastases. Neuroradiology 45:44–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Law M, Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, Arnett J, Litt AW (2002) High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 222:715–721CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lehmann P, Monet P, de Marco G et al (2010) A comparative study of perfusion measurement in brain tumours at 3 Tesla MR: Arterial spin labeling versus dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Neurol 64:21–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lehmann P, Saliou G, de Marco G et al (2012) Cerebral peritumoral oedema study: does a single dynamic MR sequence assessing perfusion and permeability can help to differentiate glioblastoma from metastasis? Eur J Radiol 81:522–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ludemann L, Grieger W, Wurm R, Wust P, Zimmer C (2005) Quantitative measurement of leakage volume and permeability in gliomas, meningiomas and brain metastases with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 23:833–841CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rizzo L, Crasto SG, Moruno PG et al (2009) Role of diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MR imaging for brain tumour characterisation. Radiol Med 114:645–659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rollin N, Guyotat J, Streichenberger N, Honnorat J, Tran Minh VA, Cotton F (2006) Clinical relevance of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in assessing intra-axial brain tumors. Neuroradiology 48:150–159CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Senturk S, Oguz KK, Cila A (2009) Dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted perfusion imaging of intracranial tumors: a study using a 3T MR scanner. Diagn Interv Radiol 15:3–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Essig M, Waschkies M, Wenz F, Debus J, Hentrich HR, Knopp MV (2003) Assessment of brain metastases with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging: initial results. Radiology 228:193–199CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hoefnagels FW, Lagerwaard FJ, Sanchez E et al (2009) Radiological progression of cerebral metastases after radiosurgery: assessment of perfusion MRI for differentiating between necrosis and recurrence. J Neurol 256:878–887CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Huang J, Wang AM, Shetty A et al (2011) Differentiation between intra-axial metastatic tumor progression and radiation injury following fractionated radiation therapy or stereotactic radiosurgery using MR spectroscopy, perfusion MR imaging or volume progression modeling. Magn Reson Imaging 29:993–1001CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Jakubovic R, Sahgal A, Ruschin M, Pejovic-Milic A, Milwid R, Aviv RI (2014) Non tumor perfusion changes following stereotactic radiosurgery to brain metastases. Technol Cancer Res TreatGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jakubovic R, Sahgal A, Soliman H et al (2014) Magnetic resonance imaging-based tumour perfusion parameters are biomarkers predicting response after radiation to brain metastases. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 26:704–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kang TW, Kim ST, Byun HS et al (2009) Morphological and functional MRI, MRS, perfusion and diffusion changes after radiosurgery of brain metastasis. Eur J Radiol 72:370–380CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kapadia A, Mehrabian H, Conklin J et al (2017) Temporal evolution of perfusion parameters in brain metastases treated with stereotactic radiosurgery: comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. J NeurooncolGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Kim DY, Kim HS, Goh MJ, Choi CG, Kim SJ (2014) Utility of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for distinguishing recurrent metastatic tumor from treatment effect following gamma knife radiosurgery: initial experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35:2082–2090CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Koh MJ, Kim HS, Choi CG, Kim SJ (2015) Which is the best advanced MR imaging protocol for predicting recurrent metastatic brain tumor following gamma-knife radiosurgery: focused on perfusion method. Neuroradiology 57:367–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Lai G, Mahadevan A, Hackney D et al (2015) Diagnostic Accuracy of PET, SPECT, and arterial spin-labeling in differentiating tumor recurrence from necrosis in cerebral metastasis after stereotactic radiosurgery. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:2250–2255CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Mitsuya K, Nakasu Y, Horiguchi S et al (2010) Perfusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging to distinguish the recurrence of metastatic brain tumors from radiation necrosis after stereotactic radiosurgery. J Neurooncol 99:81–88CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Weber MA, Thilmann C, Lichy MP et al (2004) Assessment of irradiated brain metastases by means of arterial spin-labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: initial results. Invest Radiol 39:277–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Fayed N, Davila J, Medrano J, Olmos S (2008) Malignancy assessment of brain tumours with magnetic resonance spectroscopy and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Eur J Radiol 67:427–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Huang BY, Kwock L, Castillo M, Smith JK (2010) Association of choline levels and tumor perfusion in brain metastases assessed with proton MR spectroscopy and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion weighted MRI. Technol Cancer Res Treat 9:327–337CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Svolos P, Tsolaki E, Kapsalaki E et al (2013) Investigating brain tumor differentiation with diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3T MRI using pattern recognition techniques. Magn Reson Imaging 31:1567–1577CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Tsolaki E, Svolos P, Kousi E et al (2013) Automated differentiation of glioblastomas from intracranial metastases using 3T MR spectroscopic and perfusion data. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg 8:751–761CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Tsuchiya K, Aoki S, Shimoji K, Mori H, Kunimatsu A (2013) Consecutive acquisition of time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography and perfusion MR imaging with added dose of gadolinium-based contrast agent aids diagnosis of suspected brain metastasis. Magn Reson Med Sci 12:87–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Zach L, Guez D, Last D et al (2012) Delayed contrast extravasation MRI for depicting tumor and non-tumoral tissues in primary and metastatic brain tumors. PLoS One 7:e52008CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Abe T, Mizobuchi Y, Nakajima K et al (2015) Diagnosis of brain tumors using dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion imaging with a short acquisition time. Springerplus 4:88CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Al-Okaili RN, Krejza J, Woo JH et al (2007) Intraaxial brain masses: MR imaging-based diagnostic strategy—initial experience. Radiology 243:539–550CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Lu S, Gao Q, Yu J et al (2016) Utility of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating glioblastoma, primary central nervous system lymphoma and brain metastatic tumor. Eur J Radiol 85:1722–1727CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Mangla R, Kolar B, Zhu T, Zhong J, Almast J, Ekholm S (2011) 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 32:1004–1010CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Wang S, Kim S, Chawla S et al (2011) Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 32:507–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Park SM, Kim HS, Jahng GH, Ryu CW, Kim SY (2010) Combination of high-resolution susceptibility-weighted imaging and the apparent diffusion coefficient: added value to brain tumour imaging and clinical feasibility of non-contrast MRI at 3 T. Br J Radiol 83:466–475CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Perfusion, Diffusion and Flow-MRI Biomarker Committee of the Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA). Available at: http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php/Perfusion,_Diffusion_and_Flow-MRI_Biomarker_Ctte.
  77. 77.
    Welker K, Boxerman J, Kalnin A, Kaufmann T, Shiroishi M, Wintermark M (2015) ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:E41–E51CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Hatzoglou V, Tisnado J, Mehta A et al (2017) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion for differentiating between melanoma and lung cancer brain metastases. Cancer Med 6:761–767CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kim HS, Goh MJ, Kim N, Choi CG, Kim SJ, Kim JH (2014) Which combination of MR imaging modalities is best for predicting recurrent glioblastoma? Study of diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility. Radiology 273:831–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Leeflang MM, Bossuyt PM, Irwig L (2009) Diagnostic test accuracy may vary with prevalence: implications for evidence-based diagnosis. J Clin Epidemiol 62:5–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology and Research Institute of RadiologyUniversity of Ulsan College of MedicineSeoulRepublic of Korea

Personalised recommendations