Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion MRI in differential diagnosis between radionecrosis and neoangiogenesis in cerebral metastases using rCBV, rCBF and K2.

INTRODUCTION: Distinction between treatment-related changes and tumour recurrence in patients who have received radiation treatment for brain metastases can be difficult on conventional MRI. In this study, we investigated the ability of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion in differentiating necrotic changes from pathological angiogenesis and compared measurements of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), relative cerebral blood flow (rCBF) and K2, using a dedicated software.

METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with secondary brain tumors were included in this retrospective study and underwent DSC perfusion MRI with a 3-month follow-up imaging after chemo- or radiation-therapy. Region-of-interests were drawn around the contrast enhancing lesions and measurements of rCBV, rCBF and K2 were performed in all patients. Based on subsequent histological examination or clinico-radiological follow-up, the cohort was divided in two groups: recurrent disease and stable disease. Differences between the two groups were analyzed using the Student's t test. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy of rCBV measurements were analyzed considering three different cut-off values.

RESULTS: Between patients with and without disease, only rCBV and rCBF values were significant (p < 0.05). The only cut-off value giving the best diagnostic accuracy of 100% was rCBV = 2.1 (sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 100%). Patients with tumor recurrence showed a higher mean value of rCBV (mean = 4.28, standard deviation = 2.09) than patients with necrotic-related changes (mean = 0.77, standard deviation = 0.44).

CONCLUSION: DSC-MRI appears a clinically useful method to differentiate between tumor recurrence, tumor necrosis and pseudoprogression in patients treated for cerebral metastases. Relative CBV using a cut-off value of 2.1 proved to be the most accurate and reliable parameter.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app