, Volume 48, Issue 12, pp 867–874 | Cite as

Comparison of first-pass and second-bolus dynamic susceptibility perfusion MRI in brain tumors

  • M. Vittoria SpampinatoEmail author
  • Caroline Wooten
  • Margaret Dorlon
  • Nada Besenski
  • Zoran Rumboldt
Diagnostic Neuroradiology



Our goal was to evaluate whether the T1 shortening effect caused by contrast leakage into brain tumors, a well-known confounding effect in the quantification of relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) measurements, may be corrected by the administration of a predose of gadolinium-DTPA.


As part of their presurgical imaging protocol, 25 patients with primary brain tumors underwent two consecutive dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MR studies. Intratumoral rCBV measurements and normalized rCBV values obtained during the first-pass and second-bolus studies were compared (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test). The frequency of relatively increased rCBV ratios on the second-bolus study was compared between enhancing and non-enhancing neoplasms (Fisher’s exact test). Postprocessing perfusion studies were evaluated for image quality on a scale of 0–3 (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test). Four studies were excluded due to unacceptable image quality.


Mean normalized rCBVs were 9.04 (SD 4.64) for the first-pass and 7.99 (SD 3.84) for the second-bolus study. There was no statistically significant difference between the two perfusion studies in either intratumoral rCBV (P=0.237) or rCBV ratio (P=0.181). Five enhancing and four non-enhancing tumors showed a relative increase in rCBV ratio on the second-bolus study, without a significant difference between the groups. Image quality was not significantly different between perfusion studies.


Our results did not demonstrate a significant difference between first-pass and second-bolus rCBV measurements in DSC perfusion MR imaging. The administration of a predose of gadolinium-DTPA does not appear to be an efficient way of compensating for the underestimation of intratumoral rCBV values due to the T1 shortening effect.


Magnetic resonance imaging Brain neoplasm Gadolinium DTPA Perfusion Dynamic susceptibility 


Conflict of interest statement

We declare that we have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    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 46:619–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Provenzale JM, Wang GR, Brenner T, Petrella JR, Sorensen AG (2002) Comparison of permeability in high-grade and low-grade brain tumors using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:711–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Aronen HJ, Gazit IE, Louis DN, et al (1994) Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. Radiology 191:41–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Principi M, Italiani M, Guiducci A, et al (2003) Perfusion MRI in the evaluation of the relationship between tumour growth, necrosis and angiogenesis in glioblastomas and grade 1 meningiomas. Neuroradiology 45:205–211PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 48:150–159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Essig M, Giesel F, Le-Huu M, Stieltjes B, von Tengg H, Weber MA (2004) Perfusion MRI in CNS disease: current concepts. Neuroradiology 46 [Suppl 2]:s201–s207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Knopp EA, Cha S, Johnson G, et al (1999) Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 211:791–798PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, Ushio Y, Takahashi M (2001) Perfusion-sensitive MR imaging of gliomas: comparison between gradient-echo and spin-echo echo-planar imaging techniques. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:1306–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Boxerman JL, Schmainda KM, Weisskoff RM (2006) 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 27:859–867PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nighoghossian N, Berthezene Y, Meyer R, et al (1997) Assessment of cerebrovascular reactivity by dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. J Neurol Sci 149:171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Levin JM, Kaufman MJ, Ross MH, et al (1995) Sequential dynamic susceptibility contrast MR experiments in human brain: residual contrast agent effect, steady state, and hemodynamic perturbation. Magn Reson Med 34:655–663PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Levin JM, Wald LL, Kaufman MJ, Ross MH, Maas LC, Renshaw PF (1998) T1 effects in sequential dynamic susceptibility contrast experiments. J Magn Reson 130:292–295PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Runge VM, Kirsch JE, Wells JW, Dunworth JN, Hilaire L, Woolfolk CE (1994) Repeat cerebral blood volume assessment with first-pass MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 4:457–461PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wetzel SG, Cha S, Johnson G, et al (2002) Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. Radiology 224:797–803PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lev MH, Ozsunar Y, Henson JW, et al (2004) 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 25:214–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmainda KM, Rand SD, Joseph AM, et al (2004) Characterization of a first-pass gradient-echo spin-echo method to predict brain tumor grade and angiogenesis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25:1524–1532PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Yang D, Korogi Y, Sugahara T, et al (2002) Cerebral gliomas: prospective comparison of multivoxel 2D chemical-shift imaging proton MR spectroscopy, echoplanar perfusion and diffusion-weighted MRI. Neuroradiology 44:656–666PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Henry RG, Vigneron DB, Fischbein NJ, et al (2000) Comparison of relative cerebral blood volume and proton spectroscopy in patients with treated gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:357–366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Law M, Oh S, Babb JS, et al (2006) Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging-prediction of patient clinical response. Radiology 238:658–667PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uematsu H, Maeda M, Sadato N, et al (2002) Measurement of the vascularity and vascular leakage of gliomas by double-echo dynamic magnetic resonance imaging: a preliminary study. Invest Radiol 37:571–576PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lev MH, Hochberg F (1998) Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging to assess brain tumor responses to new therapies. Cancer Control 5:115–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Covarrubias DJ, Rosen BR, Lev MH (2004) Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors. Oncologist 9:528–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roberts HC, Roberts TP, Brasch RC, Dillon WP (2000) Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21:891–899PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hacklander T, Hofer M, Reichenbach JR, Rascher K, Furst G, Modder U (1996) Cerebral blood volume maps with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted FLASH imaging: normal values and preliminary clinical results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 20:532–539PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bruening R, Kwong KK, Vevea MJ, et al (1996) Echo-planar MR determination of relative cerebral blood volume in human brain tumors: T1 versus T2 weighting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 17:831–840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Uematsu H, Maeda M, Sadato N, et al (2001) Blood volume of gliomas determined by double-echo dynamic perfusion-weighted MR imaging: a preliminary study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22:1915–1919PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Uematsu H, Maeda M (2006) Double-echo perfusion-weighted MR imaging: basic concepts and application in brain tumors for the assessment of tumor blood volume and vascular permeability. Eur Radiol 16:180–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Uematsu H, Maeda M, Sadato N, et al (2000) Vascular permeability: quantitative measurement with double-echo dynamic MR imaging – theory and clinical application. Radiology 214:912–917PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Kochi M, et al (1998) Correlation of MR imaging-determined cerebral blood volume maps with histologic and angiographic determination of vascularity of gliomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1479–1486PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sugahara T, Korogi Y, Shigematsu Y, et al (1999) Perfusion-sensitive MRI of cerebral lymphomas: a preliminary report. J Comput Assist Tomogr 23:232–237PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Vittoria Spampinato
    • 1
    Email author
  • Caroline Wooten
    • 2
  • Margaret Dorlon
    • 2
  • Nada Besenski
    • 1
  • Zoran Rumboldt
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMedical University of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Medical School of South CarolinaCharlestonUSA

Personalised recommendations