Quantitative Blood Flow Measurements in Gliomas Using Arterial Spin-Labeling at 3T: Intermodality Agreement and Inter- and Intraobserver Reproducibility Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: QUASAR is a particular application of the ASL method and facilitates the user-independent quantification of brain perfusion. The purpose of this study was to assess the intermodality agreement of TBF measurements obtained with ASL and DSC MR imaging and the inter- and intraobserver reproducibility of glioma TBF measurements acquired by ASL at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two observers independently measured TBF in 24 patients with histologically proved glioma. ASL MR imaging with QUASAR and DSC MR imaging were performed on 3T scanners. The observers placed 5 regions of interest in the solid tumor on rCBF maps derived from ASL and DSC MR images and 1 region of interest in the contralateral brain and recorded the measured values. Maximum and average sTBF values were calculated. Intermodality and intra- and interobsever agreement were determined by using 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement and ICCs. RESULTS: The intermodality agreement for maximum sTBF was good to excellent on DSC and ASL images; ICCs ranged from 0.718 to 0.884. The 95% limits of agreement ranged from 59.2% to 65.4% of the mean. ICCs for intra- and interobserver agreement for maximum sTBF ranged from 0.843 to 0.850 and from 0.626 to 0.665, respectively. The reproducibility of maximum sTBF measurements obtained by methods was similar. CONCLUSIONS: In the evaluation of sTBF in gliomas, ASL with QUASAR at 3T yielded measurements and reproducibility similar to those of DSC perfusion MR imaging.

[1]  S. Y. Kim,et al.  A Prospective Study on the Added Value of Pulsed Arterial Spin-Labeling and Apparent Diffusion Coefficients in the Grading of Gliomas , 2007, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[2]  Glyn Johnson,et al.  Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging--prediction of patient clinical response. , 2006, Radiology.

[3]  T. Hirai,et al.  Prognostic Value of Perfusion MR Imaging of High-Grade Astrocytomas: Long-Term Follow-Up Study , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[4]  R. Buxton,et al.  Quantitative imaging of perfusion using a single subtraction (QUIPSS and QUIPSS II) , 1998 .

[5]  E. Kanal,et al.  Gadolinium-based MR contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. , 2007, Radiology.

[6]  M Kirkpatrick,et al.  Cerebral Blood Volume Measurements by Perfusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Gliomas: Ready for Prime Time in Predicting Short-Term Outcome and Recurrent Disease? , 2009, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[7]  R. Kraft,et al.  Arterial Spin-Labeling in Routine Clinical Practice, Part 3: Hyperperfusion Patterns , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[8]  X Golay,et al.  Non-invasive Measurement of Perfusion: a Critical Review of Arterial Spin Labelling Techniques , 2022 .

[9]  Glyn Johnson,et al.  Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. , 2002, Radiology.

[10]  Kim Mouridsen,et al.  The QUASAR reproducibility study, Part II: Results from a multi-center Arterial Spin Labeling test–retest study , 2010, NeuroImage.

[11]  K. Schmainda,et al.  Comparison of dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR methods: recommendations for measuring relative cerebral blood volume in brain tumors. , 2008, Radiology.

[12]  Michael Bock,et al.  Arterial spin labeling in combination with a look‐locker sampling strategy: Inflow turbo‐sampling EPI‐FAIR (ITS‐FAIR) , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  Jin-Suh Kim,et al.  Using relative cerebral blood flow and volume to evaluate the histopathologic grade of cerebral gliomas: preliminary results. , 2002, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  T. Cooke,et al.  Doppler perfusion index: an interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. , 1998, Radiology.

[15]  R. Kraft,et al.  Arterial Spin-Labeling in Routine Clinical Practice, Part 1: Technique and Artifacts , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[16]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  Michael H Lev,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]. , 2004, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[18]  M. Takahashi,et al.  Perfusion-sensitive MR imaging of gliomas: comparison between gradient-echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging techniques. , 2001, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[19]  Glyn Johnson,et al.  Comparison of cerebral blood volume and vascular permeability from dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging with glioma grade. , 2004, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[20]  A. Beckett,et al.  AKUFO AND IBARAPA. , 1965, Lancet.

[21]  M Takahashi,et al.  Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas. , 1998, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[22]  R. Fanchin,et al.  High reproducibility of serum anti-Mullerian hormone measurements suggests a multi-staged follicular secretion and strengthens its role in the assessment of ovarian follicular status. , 2005, Human reproduction.

[23]  G Johnson,et al.  Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. , 1999, Radiology.

[24]  Esben Thade Petersen,et al.  Model‐free arterial spin labeling quantification approach for perfusion MRI , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[25]  B. Scheithauer,et al.  The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system , 2007, Acta Neuropathologica.

[26]  H. Itoh,et al.  Perfusion imaging of meningioma by using continuous arterial spin-labeling: comparison with dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR images and histopathologic features. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[27]  R J Ordidge,et al.  Simultaneous noninvasive measurement of CBF and CBV using double‐echo FAIR (DEFAIR) , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[28]  G. Zaharchuk,et al.  Theoretical Basis of Hemodynamic MR Imaging Techniques to Measure Cerebral Blood Volume, Cerebral Blood Flow, and Permeability , 2007, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[29]  I. Ercan,et al.  High-grade and low-grade gliomas: differentiation by using perfusion MR imaging. , 2005, Clinical radiology.

[30]  Seong-Gi Kim,et al.  Quantification of cerebral arterial blood volume and cerebral blood flow using MRI with modulation of tissue and vessel (MOTIVE) signals , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[31]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[32]  C. Zimmer,et al.  Quantification of blood flow in brain tumors: comparison of arterial spin labeling and dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MR imaging. , 2003, Radiology.

[33]  T Sasaki,et al.  Perfusion Imaging of Brain Tumors Using Arterial Spin-Labeling: Correlation with Histopathologic Vascular Density , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[34]  Allan Donner,et al.  Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients , 2002 .

[35]  R. Kraft,et al.  Arterial Spin-Labeling in Routine Clinical Practice, Part 2: Hypoperfusion Patterns , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.