Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Glioma Imaging pp 61–91Cite as

Advanced Physiologic Imaging: Perfusion – Theory and Applications

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is fundamental to the management of patients with brain tumors. Specifically, the characterization of angiogenesis, which is a hallmark of cancer cells, is crucial for the translation of new therapies into the clinic and for assessing therapeutic effects in individual patients. In this context, noninvasive characterization of hemodynamic parameters on MRI has emerged as an important diagnostic tool. This chapter aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the basic principles and clinical applications of the various MRI perfusion techniques in neuro-oncology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Thust SC, et al. Glioma imaging in Europe: a survey of 220 centres and recommendations for best clinical practice. Eur Radiol. 2018;28(8):3306–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellingson BM, et al. Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(9):1188–98.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Meier P, Zierler KL. On the theory of the indicator-dilution method for measurement of blood flow and volume. J Appl Physiol. 1954;6(12):731–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosen BR, et al. Contrast agents and cerebral hemodynamics. Magn Reson Med. 1991;19:285–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Weisskoff RM, et al. Pitfalls in MR measurement of tissue blood flow with intravascular tracers: which mean transit time? Magn Reson Med. 1993;29(4):553–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cha S, et al. Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2002;223(1):11–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Murase K, et al. Determination of arterial input function using fuzzy clustering for quantification of cerebral blood flow with dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2001;13(5):797–806.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mouridsen K, et al. Automatic selection of arterial input function using cluster analysis. Magn Reson Med. 2006;55(3):524–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jahng GH, et al. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive update on principles and techniques. Korean J Radiol. 2014;15(5):554–77.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Welker K, et al. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(6):E41–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Boxerman JL, et al. MR contrast due to intravascular magnetic susceptibility perturbations. Magn Reson Med. 1995;34(4):555–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Leu K, Boxerman JL, Ellingson BM. Effects of MRI protocol parameters, preload injection dose, fractionation strategies, and leakage correction algorithms on the fidelity of dynamic-susceptibility contrast MRI estimates of relative cerebral blood volume in gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(3):478–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Boxerman JL, et al. The role of preload and leakage correction in gadolinium-based cerebral blood volume estimation determined by comparison with MION as a criterion standard. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(6):1081–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Toh CH, et al. 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. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(6):1145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Boxerman JL, Schmainda KM, Weisskoff RM. Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(4):859–67.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Semmineh NB, et al. Optimization of acquisition and analysis methods for clinical dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI using a population-based digital reference object. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(11):1981–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Donahue KM, et al. Utility of simultaneously acquired gradient-echo and spin-echo cerebral blood volume and morphology maps in brain tumor patients. Magn Reson Med. 2000;43(6):845–53.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schmiedeskamp H, et al. Combined spin- and gradient-echo perfusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2012;68(1):30–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Vonken EJ, et al. Measurement of cerebral perfusion with dual-echo multi-slice quantitative dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(2):109–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hu LS, et al. Correlations between perfusion MR imaging cerebral blood volume, microvessel quantification, and clinical outcome using stereotactic analysis in recurrent high-grade glioma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(1):69–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Boxerman J, Schmainda K, Weisskoff R. Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006;27(4):859–67.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Schmainda KM, et al. Moving Toward a Consensus DSC-MRI Protocol: Validation of a Low-Flip Angle Single-Dose Option as a Reference Standard for Brain Tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019;40(4):626–33.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kang H, et al. Gadolinium deposition in deep brain structures: relationship with dose and ionization of linear gadolinium-based contrast agents. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018;39(9):1597–603.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Hakyemez B, et al. Evaluation of different cerebral mass lesions by perfusion-weighted MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006;24(4):817–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Floriano VH, et al. The role of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging in differentiating between infectious and neoplastic focal brain lesions: results from a cohort of 100 consecutive patients. PLoS One. 2013;8(12):e81509.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Toh CH, et al. Differentiation of brain abscesses from glioblastomas and metastatic brain tumors: comparisons of diagnostic performance of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging before and after mathematic contrast leakage correction. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e109172.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Kickingereder P, et al. Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: multiparametric differentiation by using diffusion-, perfusion-, and susceptibility-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2014;272(3):843–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Toh C, et al. 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. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(6):1145–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Wang S, et al. Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(3):507–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Law M, et al. Comparison of cerebral blood volume and vascular permeability from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(5):746–55.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Hirai T, et al. Prognostic value of perfusion MR imaging of high-grade astrocytomas: long-term follow-up study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(8):1505–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Jain R, et al. Genomic mapping and survival prediction in glioblastoma: molecular subclassification strengthened by hemodynamic imaging biomarkers. Radiology. 2013;267(1):212–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Bonekamp D, et al. Association of overall survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma with contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI: comparison of intraindividually matched T - and T -based bolus techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014;

    Google Scholar 

  34. Law M, et al. Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;247(2):490–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kickingereder P, et al. Radiomic Profiling of Glioblastoma: Identifying an Imaging Predictor of Patient Survival with Improved Performance over Established Clinical and Radiologic Risk Models. Radiology. 2016;280(3):880–9, p. 160845.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Maia AC, et al. Stereotactic biopsy guidance in adults with supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas: role of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg. 2004;101(6):970–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lefranc M, et al. Perfusion MRI as a neurosurgical tool for improved targeting in stereotactic tumor biopsies. Stereotact Funct Neurosurg. 2012;90(4):240–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Ulmer S, et al. Intraoperative dynamic susceptibility contrast weighted magnetic resonance imaging (iDSC-MRI) – technical considerations and feasibility. Neuroimage. 2009;45(1):38–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Law M, et al. Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging–prediction of patient clinical response. Radiology. 2006;238(2):658–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Danchaivijitr N, et al. Low-grade gliomas: do changes in rCBV measurements at longitudinal perfusion-weighted MR imaging predict malignant transformation? Radiology. 2008;247(1):170–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Jalbert LE, et al. Magnetic resonance analysis of malignant transformation in recurrent glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(8):1169–79.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Kickingereder P, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume is a potential predictive imaging biomarker of bevacizumab efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(8):1139–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Kickingereder P, et al. MR-perfusion derived hemodynamic parametric response mapping of bevacizumab efficacy in recurrent glioblastoma. Radiology. 2016;279(2):542–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Schmainda KM, et al. Dynamic-susceptibility contrast agent MRI measures of relative cerebral blood volume predict response to bevacizumab in recurrent high-grade glioma. Neuro Oncol. 2014;16(6):880–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Antonios JP, et al. Detection of immune responses after immunotherapy in glioblastoma using PET and MRI. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(38):10220–10,225.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Stenberg L, et al. Dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion magnetic resonance (MR) imaging combined with contrast-enhanced MR imaging in the follow-up of immunogene-treated glioblastoma multiforme. Acta Radiol. 2006;47(8):852–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Vrabec M, et al. MR perfusion and diffusion imaging in the follow-up of recurrent glioblastoma treated with dendritic cell immunotherapy: a pilot study. Neuroradiology. 2011;53(10):721–31.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Park JE, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: assessment by using volume-weighted voxel-based multiparametric clustering of MR imaging data in an independent test set. Radiology. 2015;275(3):792–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Prager AJ, et al. Diffusion and perfusion MRI to differentiate treatment-related changes including pseudoprogression from recurrent tumors in high-grade gliomas with histopathologic evidence. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(5):877–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Young RJ, et al. MRI perfusion in determining pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(1):41–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Kong DS, et al. Diagnostic dilemma of pseudoprogression in the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastomas: the role of assessing relative cerebral blood flow volume and oxygen-6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase promoter methylation status. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32(2):382–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Cha J, et al. Differentiation of tumor progression from pseudoprogression in patients with posttreatment glioblastoma using multiparametric histogram analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(7):1309–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Baek HJ, et al. Percent change of perfusion skewness and kurtosis: a potential imaging biomarker for early treatment response in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastomas. Radiology. 2012;264(3):834–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Boxerman JL, et al. Longitudinal DSC-MRI for distinguishing tumor recurrence from pseudoprogression in patients with a high-grade glioma. Am J Clin Oncol. 2017;40(3):228–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Kickingereder P, et al. IDH mutation status is associated with a distinct hypoxia/angiogenesis transcriptome signature which is non-invasively predictable with rCBV imaging in human glioma. Sci Rep. 2015;5:16238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Kickingereder P, et al. Radiogenomics of glioblastoma: machine learning-based classification of molecular characteristics by using multiparametric and multiregional MR imaging features. Radiology. 2016;281(3):907–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Xing Z, et al. Noninvasive assessment of IDH mutational status in World Health Organization grade II and III astrocytomas using DWI and DSC-PWI combined with conventional MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(6):1138–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Hu LS, et al. Radiogenomics to characterize regional genetic heterogeneity in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2017;19(1):128–37.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Macyszyn L, et al. Imaging patterns predict patient survival and molecular subtype in glioblastoma via machine learning techniques. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(3):417–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Dibble EH, et al. Toxoplasmosis versus lymphoma: cerebral lesion characterization using DSC-MRI revisited. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;152:84–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Hourani R, et al. Can proton MR spectroscopic and perfusion imaging differentiate between neoplastic and nonneoplastic brain lesions in adults? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(2):366–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Blasel S, et al. Metabolism and regional cerebral blood volume in autoimmune inflammatory demyelinating lesions mimicking malignant gliomas. J Neurol. 2011;258(1):113–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Louis DN, et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol. 2007;114(2):97–109.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Law M, 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(10):1989–98.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Zonari P, Baraldi P, Crisi G. Multimodal MRI in the characterization of glial neoplasms: the combined role of single-voxel MR spectroscopy, diffusion imaging and echo-planar perfusion imaging. Neuroradiology. 2007;49(10):795–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Cha S, et al. Differentiation of low-grade oligodendrogliomas from low-grade astrocytomas by using quantitative blood-volume measurements derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(2):266–73.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Lev MH, et al. Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas [corrected]. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2004;25(2):214–21.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Verhaak RG, et al. Integrated genomic analysis identifies clinically relevant subtypes of glioblastoma characterized by abnormalities in PDGFRA, IDH1, EGFR, and NF1. Cancer Cell. 2010;17(1):98–110.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Ceccarelli M, et al. Molecular profiling reveals biologically discrete subsets and pathways of progression in diffuse glioma. Cell. 2016;164(3):550–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, et al. Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(26):2481–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Capper D, et al. DNA methylation-based classification of central nervous system tumours. Nature. 2018;555(7697):469–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Hartmann C, et al. Patients with IDH1 wild type anaplastic astrocytomas exhibit worse prognosis than IDH1-mutated glioblastomas, and IDH1 mutation status accounts for the unfavorable prognostic effect of higher age: implications for classification of gliomas. Acta Neuropathol. 2010;120(6):707–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Louis DN, et al. The 2016 World Health Organization classification of tumors of the central nervous system: a summary. Acta Neuropathol. 2016;131(6):803–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Koivunen P, et al. Transformation by the (R)-enantiomer of 2-hydroxyglutarate linked to EGLN activation. Nature. 2012;483(7390):484–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Ye D, et al. R-2-hydroxyglutarate as the key effector of IDH mutations promoting oncogenesis. Cancer Cell. 2013;23(3):274–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Kickingereder P, Andronesi OC. Radiomics, metabolic, and molecular MRI for brain tumors. Semin Neurol. 2018;38(1):32–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Andronesi OC, et al. Detection of oncogenic IDH1 mutations using magnetic resonance spectroscopy of 2-hydroxyglutarate. J Clin Invest. 2013;123(9):3659–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  78. Andronesi OC, et al. Pharmacodynamics of mutant-IDH1 inhibitors in glioma patients probed by in vivo 3D MRS imaging of 2-hydroxyglutarate. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1474.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Choi C, et al. Prospective longitudinal analysis of 2-hydroxyglutarate magnetic resonance spectroscopy identifies broad clinical utility for the management of patients with IDH-mutant glioma. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(33):4030–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Choi C, et al. 2-hydroxyglutarate detection by magnetic resonance spectroscopy in IDH-mutated patients with gliomas. Nat Med. 2012;18(4):624–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. Kickingereder P, et al. Radiogenomics of glioblastoma: machine learning-based classification of molecular characteristics by using multiparametric and multiregional MR imaging features. Radiology. 2016;281(3):907–18, p. 161382.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Macyszyn L, et al. Imaging patterns predict patient survival and molecular subtype in glioblastoma via machine learning techniques. Neuro Oncol. 2015;18(3):417–25.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Lu CF, et al. Machine learning-based radiomics for molecular subtyping of gliomas. Clin Cancer Res. 2018;24(18):4429–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Kang D, et al. Diffusion radiomics as a diagnostic model for atypical manifestation of primary central nervous system lymphoma: development and multicenter external validation. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20(9):1251–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Bhagavathi S, Wilson JD. Primary central nervous system lymphoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2008;132(11):1830–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Wen PY, et al. Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(11):1963–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Leu K, et al. Imaging biomarkers for antiangiogenic therapy in malignant gliomas. CNS Oncol. 2013;2(1):33–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Nowosielski M, et al. Progression types after antiangiogenic therapy are related to outcome in recurrent glioblastoma. Neurology. 2014;82(19):1684–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Chinot OL, et al. Bevacizumab plus radiotherapy-temozolomide for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):709–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Gilbert MR, et al. A randomized trial of bevacizumab for newly diagnosed glioblastoma. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(8):699–708.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  91. Wick W., et al. Phase III trial exploring the combination of bevacizumab and lomustine in patients with first recurrence of a glioblastoma: the EORTC 26101 trial, in 2015 SNO Annual Meeting. 2015: San Antonio.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Lu-Emerson C, et al. Lessons from anti-vascular endothelial growth factor and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor receptor trials in patients with glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(10):1197–213.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Mayer TM. Can we predict bevacizumab responders in patients with glioblastoma? J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(25):2721–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Verhoeff JJ, et al. Bevacizumab and dose-intense temozolomide in recurrent high-grade glioma. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(8):1723–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Schmainda KM, et al. Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI measures of relative cerebral blood volume as a prognostic marker for overall survival in recurrent glioblastoma: results from the ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 multicenter trial. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(8):1148–56.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Wang N, Jain RK, Batchelor TT. New directions in anti-angiogenic therapy for glioblastoma. Neurotherapeutics. 2017;14(2):321–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  97. Lim M, et al. Current state of immunotherapy for glioblastoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15(7):422–42.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Okada H, et al. Immunotherapy response assessment in neuro-oncology: a report of the RANO working group. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16(15):e534–42.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Radbruch A, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: clinical relevance despite low incidence. Neuro Oncol. 2015;17(1):151–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Gerstner ER, et al. Effect of adding temozolomide to radiation therapy on the incidence of pseudo-progression. J Neurooncol. 2009;94(1):97–101.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Brandes AA, et al. MGMT promoter methylation status can predict the incidence and outcome of pseudoprogression after concomitant radiochemotherapy in newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26(13):2192–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Balana C, et al. Pseudoprogression as an adverse event of glioblastoma therapy. Cancer Med. 2017;6(12):2858–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  103. Ellingson BM, et al. Pseudoprogression, radionecrosis, inflammation or true tumor progression? challenges associated with glioblastoma response assessment in an evolving therapeutic landscape. J Neurooncol. 2017;134(3):495–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  104. Barajas RF Jr, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma multiforme from radiation necrosis after external beam radiation therapy with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2009;253(2):486–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Hu LS, et al. Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(3):552–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  106. Wan B, et al. The diagnostic performance of perfusion MRI for differentiating glioma recurrence from pseudoprogression: a meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96(11):e6333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Kim JY, et al. Incorporating diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI into a radiomics model improves diagnostic performance for pseudoprogression in glioblastoma patients. Neuro Oncol. 2018;21(3):404–14.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  108. Galban CJ, et al. Prospective analysis of parametric response map-derived MRI biomarkers: identification of early and distinct glioma response patterns not predicted by standard radiographic assessment. Clin Cancer Res. 2011;17(14):4751–60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  109. Tsien C, et al. Parametric response map as an imaging biomarker to distinguish progression from pseudoprogression in high-grade glioma. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(13):2293–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. McDonald DM, Baluk P. Significance of blood vessel leakiness in cancer. Cancer Res. 2002;62(18):5381–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Bammer R. MR and CT perfusion and pharmacokinetic imaging: clinical applications and theoretical principles. The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Health; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Essig M, et al. Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked clinical questions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201(3):W495–510.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Essig M, et al. Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(1):24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Artzi M, et al. Optimization of DCE-MRI protocol for the assessment of patients with brain tumors. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34(9):1242–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Paulson ES, Schmainda KM. Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. Radiology. 2008;249(2):601–13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Stokes AM, et al. Assessment of a simplified spin and gradient echo (sSAGE) approach for human brain tumor perfusion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;34(9):1248–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Evelhoch JL. Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;10(3):254–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Cuenod CA, Balvay D. Perfusion and vascular permeability: basic concepts and measurement in DCE-CT and DCE-MRI. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2013;94(12):1187–204.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Paldino MJ, Barboriak DP. Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(2):277–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Tofts PS, 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(3):223–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  121. Sung YS, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for oncology drug development. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(2):251–64.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Miller JC, et al. Imaging angiogenesis: applications and potential for drug development. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;97(3):172–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  123. Alcaide-Leon P, Rovira A. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR: importance of reaching the washout phase. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2013;34(5):E58–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Tofts PS T1-weighted DCE imaging concepts: modelling, acquisition and analysis. Signal. 2010;500(450):400.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Cheng HL. Improved correlation to quantitative DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters using a modified initial area under the uptake curve (mIAUC) approach. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30(4):864–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. O’Connor J, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging techniques: CT and MRI. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(special_issue_2):S112–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Parker GJ, et al. Experimentally-derived functional form for a population-averaged high-temporal-resolution arterial input function for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2006;56(5):993–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Tofts PS, Kermode AG. Measurement of the blood-brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts. Magn Reson Med. 1991;17(2):357–67.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Barboriak D, et al. Inter-reader variability in dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging of patients with recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: results from the multi-center ACRIN 6677/RTOG 0625 study. Radiology. 2018;290(2):467–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Jackson A, et al. Imaging tumor vascular heterogeneity and angiogenesis using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(12):3449–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Leach MO, et al. The assessment of antiangiogenic and antivascular therapies in early-stage clinical trials using magnetic resonance imaging: issues and recommendations. Br J Cancer. 2005;92(9):1599–610.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  132. Chung WJ, et al. Recurrent glioblastoma: optimum area under the curve method derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2013;269(2):561–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Narang J, et al. Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro Oncol. 2011;13(9):1037–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Nguyen TB, Cron GO. Correlation of tumor immunohistochemistry with dynamic contrast-enhanced and DSC-MRI parameters in patients with gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(12):2217–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Li X, et al. Glioma grading by microvascular permeability parameters derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and intratumoral susceptibility signal on susceptibility weighted imaging. Cancer Imaging. 2015;15:4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  136. Jung SC, et al. Glioma: Application of histogram analysis of pharmacokinetic parameters from T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to tumor grading. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(6):1103–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Jia Z, et al. Quantitative analysis of neovascular permeability in glioma by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Clin Neurosci. 2012;19(6):820–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Choi HS, et al. Glioma grading capability: comparisons among parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and ADC value on DWI. Korean J Radiol. 2013;14(3):487–92.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  139. Arevalo-Perez J, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in grading of gliomas. J Neuroimaging. 2015;25(5):792–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  140. Roberts HC, 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(5):891–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  141. Zhang N, et al. Correlation of volume transfer coefficient Ktrans with histopathologic grades of gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;36(2):355–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Patankar TF, et al. Is volume transfer coefficient (K(trans)) related to histologic grade in human gliomas? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2005;26(10):2455–65.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  143. Ludemann L, et al. Quantitative measurement of leakage volume and permeability in gliomas, meningiomas and brain metastases with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;23(8):833–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Lu S, et al. Utility of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating glioblastoma, primary central nervous system lymphoma and brain metastatic tumor. Neuroradiology. 2016;85(10):1722–7.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Kickingereder P, et al. Evaluation of microvascular permeability with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the differentiation of primary CNS lymphoma and glioblastoma: radiologic-pathologic correlation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(8):1503–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Choi YS, et al. Primary central nervous system lymphoma and atypical glioblastoma: differentiation using the initial area under the curve derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR and the apparent diffusion coefficient. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(4):1344–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Zhang W, et al. Acute effects of bevacizumab on glioblastoma vascularity assessed with DCE-MRI and relation to patient survival. In Intl Soc Magn Reson Med. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Shiroishi MS, Boxerman JL, Pope WB. Physiologic MRI for assessment of response to therapy and prognosis in glioblastoma. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(4):467–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Choi YS, et al. The initial area under the curve derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI improves prognosis prediction in glioblastoma with unmethylated MGMT promoter. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(8):1528–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  150. Yun TJ, et al. Glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy: differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression with quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2015;274(3):830–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Thomas AA, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced T1 MRI perfusion differentiates pseudoprogression from recurrent glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;125(1):183–90.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Hatzoglou V, et al. A prospective trial of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion and fluorine-18 FDG PET-CT in differentiating brain tumor progression from radiation injury after cranial irradiation. Neuro Oncol. 2016;18(6):873–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Yoon RG, et al. Differentiation of recurrent glioblastoma from delayed radiation necrosis by using voxel-based multiparametric analysis of MR imaging data. Radiology. 2017;285(1):206–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Hamilton JD, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion processing for neuroradiologists: model-dependent analysis may not be necessary for determining recurrent high-grade glioma versus treatment effect. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(4):686–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  155. Artzi M, et al. Differentiation between treatment-related changes and progressive disease in patients with high grade brain tumors using support vector machine classification based on DCE MRI. J Neurooncol. 2016;127(3):515–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Kim HS, et al. Which combination of MR imaging modalities is best for predicting recurrent glioblastoma? Study of diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility. Radiology. 2014;273(3):831–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Artzi M, et al. Differentiation between vasogenic-edema versus tumor-infiltrative area in patients with glioblastoma during bevacizumab therapy: a longitudinal MRI study. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(7):1250–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Artzi M, et al. Classification of tumor area using combined DCE and DSC MRI in patients with glioblastoma. J Neurooncol. 2015;121(2):349–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  159. Gerstner ER, et al. VEGF inhibitors in the treatment of cerebral edema in patients with brain cancer. Nat Rev. Clin Oncol. 2009;6(4):229–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Sorensen AG, et al. A “vascular normalization index” as potential mechanistic biomarker to predict survival after a single dose of cediranib in recurrent glioblastoma patients. Cancer Res. 2009;69(13):5296–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  161. Kickingereder P, et al. Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI derived microvascular permeability in recurrent glioblastoma treated with bevacizumab. J Neurooncol. 2015;121(2):373–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  162. Piludu F, et al. Early biomarkers from dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to predict the response to antiangiogenic therapy in high-grade gliomas. Neuroradiology. 2015;57(12):1269–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. O’Connor JPB, Jayson GC. Do imaging biomarkers relate to outcome in patients treated with VEGF inhibitors? Clinical Cancer Research. 2012;18(24):6588–98.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  164. Anzalone N, et al. Brain gliomas: multicenter standardized assessment of dynamic contrast-enhanced and dynamic susceptibility contrast MR images. Radiology. 2018;287(3):933–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  165. Alsop DC, Detre JA. Reduced transit-time sensitivity in noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging of human cerebral blood flow. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 1996;16(6):1236–49.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Williams DS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of perfusion using spin inversion of arterial water. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992;89(1):212–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Grade M, et al. A neuroradiologist’s guide to arterial spin labeling MRI in clinical practice. Neuroradiology. 2015;57(12):1181–202.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  168. Petersen ET, et al. Non-invasive measurement of perfusion: a critical review of arterial spin labelling techniques. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(944):688–701.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  169. Pollock JM, et al. Arterial spin-labeled MR perfusion imaging: clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2009;17(2):315–38.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  170. Goo HW, Ra YS. Advanced MRI for pediatric brain tumors with emphasis on clinical benefits. Korean J Radiol. 2017;18(1):194–207.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. Chen Y, Wang DJ, Detre JA. Test-retest reliability of arterial spin labeling with common labeling strategies. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;33(4):940–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  172. Deibler AR, et al. Arterial spin-labeling in routine clinical practice, Part 1: technique and artifacts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(7):1228–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. Zhang X, et al. In vivo blood T(1) measurements at 1.5 T, 3 T, and 7 T. Magn Reson Med. 2013;70(4):1082–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  174. Alsop DC, et al. Recommended implementation of arterial spin-labeled perfusion MRI for clinical applications: A consensus of the ISMRM perfusion study group and the European consortium for ASL in dementia. Magn Reson Med. 2015;73(1):102–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Steketee RM, et al. Quantitative Functional Arterial Spin Labeling (fASL) MRI–sensitivity and reproducibility of regional CBF changes using pseudo-continuous ASL product sequences. PLoS One. 2015;10(7):e0132929.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  176. Petersen ET, et al. The QUASAR reproducibility study, Part II: results from a multi-center arterial spin labeling test-retest study. Neuroimage. 2010;49(1):104–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Gevers S, et al. Intra- and multicenter reproducibility of pulsed, continuous and pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling methods for measuring cerebral perfusion. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2011;31(8):1706–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  178. Cebeci H, et al. Assessment of perfusion in glial tumors with arterial spin labeling; comparison with dynamic susceptibility contrast method. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(10):1914–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  179. Fudaba H, et al. Comparison of multiple parameters obtained on 3 T pulsed arterial spin-labeling, diffusion tensor imaging, and MRS and the Ki-67 labeling index in evaluating glioma grading. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(11):2091–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  180. Furtner J, et al. Arterial spin-labeling assessment of normalized vascular intratumoral signal intensity as a predictor of histologic grade of astrocytic neoplasms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2014;35(3):482–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  181. Kim MJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and interobserver variability of pulsed arterial spin labeling for glioma grading. Acta Radiol. 2008;49(4):450–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. Lehmann P, et al. A comparative study of perfusion measurement in brain tumours at 3 Tesla MR: Arterial spin labeling versus dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Neurol. 2010;64(1):21–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  183. Ma H, et al. Three-dimensional arterial spin labeling imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion-weighted imaging value in diagnosing glioma grade prior to surgery. Exp Ther Med. 2017;13(6):2691–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  184. Shen N, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging analysis of diffusion and microperfusion in grading gliomas and comparison with arterial spin labeling for evaluation of tumor perfusion. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016;44(3):620–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Soni N, et al. Perfusion MR imaging of enhancing brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling technique with dynamic susceptibility contrast technique. Neurol India. 2017;65(5):1046–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  186. Warmuth C, Gunther M, Zimmer C. Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2003;228(2):523–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  187. Weber MA, et al. Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors. Neurology. 2006;66(12):1899–906.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  188. Wolf RL, et al. Grading of CNS neoplasms using continuous arterial spin labeled perfusion MR imaging at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2005;22(4):475–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Xiao HF, et al. Astrocytic tumour grading: a comparative study of three-dimensional pseudocontinuous arterial spin labelling, dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging, and diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol. 2015;25(12):3423–30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  190. Yang S, et al. Improving the grading accuracy of astrocytic neoplasms noninvasively by combining timing information with cerebral blood flow: a multi-TI arterial spin-labeling MR imaging study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016;37(12):2209–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  191. Zeng Q, Jiang B. 3D pseudocontinuous arterial spin-labeling MR imaging in the preoperative evaluation of gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(10):1876–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  192. Zhang K, et al. Relationship of regional cerebral blood flow and kinetic behaviour of O-(2-(18)F-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine uptake in cerebral gliomas. Nucl Med Commun. 2014;35(3):245–51.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  193. Delgado A, et al. Arterial spin labeling MR imaging for differentiation between high- and low-grade glioma-a meta-analysis. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20(11):1450–61.

    Google Scholar 

  194. Noguchi T, et al. Perfusion imaging of brain tumors using arterial spin-labeling: correlation with histopathologic vascular density. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008;29(4):688–93.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  195. Yamashita K, et al. Differentiating primary CNS lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme: assessment using arterial spin labeling, diffusion-weighted imaging, and (1)(8)F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Neuroradiology. 2013;55(2):135–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  196. Yamashita K, et al. Arterial spin labeling of hemangioblastoma: differentiation from metastatic brain tumors based on quantitative blood flow measurement. Neuroradiology. 2012;54(8):809–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  197. Kang KM, et al. Added value of arterial spin-labeling MR imaging for the differentiation of cerebellar hemangioblastoma from metastasis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017;38(11):2052–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  198. Choi YJ, et al. Pseudoprogression in patients with glioblastoma: added value of arterial spin labeling to dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging. Acta Radiol. 2013;54(4):448–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  199. Ye J, et al. Differentiation between recurrent gliomas and radiation necrosis using arterial spin labeling perfusion imaging. Exp Ther Med. 2016;11(6):2432–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Heo YJ, et al. Uninterpretable dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR images in patients with post-treatment glioblastomas: cross-validation of alternative imaging options. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0136380.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  201. Calmon R, et al. Cerebral blood flow changes after radiation therapy identifies pseudoprogression in diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas. Neuro Oncol. 2018;20(7):994–1002.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. Qiao XJ, et al. Arterial spin-labeling perfusion MRI stratifies progression-free survival and correlates with epidermal growth factor receptor status in glioblastoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2015;36(4):672–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  203. Furtner J, et al. Prognostic value of blood flow measurements using arterial spin labeling in gliomas. PLoS One. 2014;9(6):e99616.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  204. Ward E, et al. Childhood and adolescent cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin. 2014;64(2):83–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Poussaint TY, Rodriguez D. Advanced neuroimaging of pediatric brain tumors: MR diffusion, MR perfusion, and MR spectroscopy. Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2006;16(1):169–92, ix.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  206. Peet AC, et al. Functional imaging in adult and paediatric brain tumours. Nat Rev. Clin Oncol. 2012;9(12):700–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Dangouloff-Ros V, et al. Arterial spin labeling to predict brain tumor grading in children: correlations between histopathologic vascular density and perfusion MR imaging. Radiology. 2016;281(2):553–66, p. 152228.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  208. Law-Ye B, et al. Arterial spin labeling to predict brain tumor grading: limits of cutoff cerebral blood flow values. Radiology. 2017;282(2):610–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Ji Eun Park would like to thank Ho Sung Kim, M.D., Ph.D., for providing valuable insights and helpful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroradiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany

    Philipp Kickingereder

  2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, South Korea

    Ji Eun Park

  3. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA

    Jerrold L. Boxerman

Authors
  1. Philipp Kickingereder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ji Eun Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jerrold L. Boxerman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philipp Kickingereder .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Whitney B. Pope

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Kickingereder, P., Park, J.E., Boxerman, J.L. (2020). Advanced Physiologic Imaging: Perfusion – Theory and Applications. In: Pope, W. (eds) Glioma Imaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27359-0_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27359-0_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27358-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-27359-0

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation