Comparison of T1 mapping and fixed T1 method for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion in brain gliomas
To compare dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) data obtained using different prebolus T1 values in glioma grading and molecular profiling.
We retrospectively reviewed 83 cases of gliomas: 46 lower-grade gliomas (LGG; grades II and III) and 37 high-grade gliomas (HGG; grade IV). DCE-MRI maps of plasma volume fraction (Vp), extravascular-extracellular volume fraction (Ve), and tracer transfer constant from plasma to tissue (Ktrans) were obtained using a fixed T1 value of 1400 ms and a measured T1 obtained with variable flip angle (VFA). Tumour segmentations were performed and first-order histogram parameters were extracted from volumes of interest (VOIs) after co-registration with the perfusion maps. The two methods were compared using Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test and Bland-Altman analysis. Diagnostic accuracy was obtained and compared using ROC curve analysis and DeLong’s test.
Perfusion parameters obtained with the fixed T1 value were significantly higher than those obtained with the VFA. As regards diagnostic accuracy, there were no significant differences between the two methods both for glioma grading and molecular classification, except for few parameters of both methods.
DCE-MRI data obtained with different prebolus T1 are not comparable and the definition of a prebolus T1 by T1 mapping is not mandatory since it does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of DCE-MRI.
• DCE-MRI data obtained with different prebolus T1 are significantly different, thus not comparable.
• The definition of a prebolus T1 by T1 mapping is not mandatory since it does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of DCE-MRI for glioma grading.
• The use of a fixed T1 value represents a valid alternative to T1 mapping for DCE-MRI analysis.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Brain Glioma Perfusion imaging
Tracer transfer constant from plasma to tissue
Extravascular-extracellular volume fraction
Variable flip angle
Plasma volume fraction
The authors thank Marcello Cadioli and Antonella Iadanza for technical support, and Bradley J. Erickson for reviewing the article.
The authors state that this work has not received any funding.
Compliance with ethical standards
The scientific guarantor of this publication is Nicoletta Anzalone.
Conflict of interest
The authors of this manuscript declare relationships with the following companies: Nicoletta Anzalone is a member of the advisory board of Bracco; is a consultant for Bayer Healthcare; is on the speakers bureaus of Bayer Healthcare and Guerbet.
Statistics and biometry
No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.
Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.
Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.
Study subjects or cohorts overlap
All study subjects have been previously reported in: Anzalone N, Castellano A, Cadioli M, Conte GM, et al. Brain Gliomas: Multicenter Standardized Assessment of Dynamic Contrast-enhanced and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast MR Images. Radiology, 2018.
• diagnostic study
• multicentre study
- 2.Nguyen TB, Cron GO, Perdrizet K et al (2015) Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of DSC- and dynamic contrastenhanced MRI in the preoperative grading of astrocytomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:2017–2022. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A4398
- 7.O'Connor JP, Tofts PS, Miles KA, Parkes LM, Thompson G, Jackson A (2011) Dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging techniques: CT and MRI. Br J Radiol 84 Spec No 2:S112–20. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/55166688
- 11.Dale BM, Jesberger JA, Lewin JS, Hillenbrand CM, Duerk JL (2003) Determining and optimizing the precision of quantitative measurements of perfusion from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 18:575–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10399
- 12.Conte GM, Castellano A, Altabella L et al (2017) Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI in the study of brain gliomas: a comparison of data obtained using different commercial software. Radiol Med 122:294–302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-016-0720-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 17.Stikov N, Boudreau M, Levesque IR, Tardif CL, Barral JK, Pike GB (2015) On the accuracy of T1 mapping: searching for common ground. Magn Reson Med 73:514–522. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.25135
- 18.Larsson C, Kleppestø M, Grothe I, Vardal J, Bjørnerud A (2015) T1 in high-grade glioma and the influence of different measurement strategies on parameter estimations in DCE-MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24772
- 19.Nam JG, Kang KM, Choi SH et al (2017) Comparison between the prebolus T1 measurement and the fixed T1 value in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for the differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with concurrent radiation therapy and temozolomide chemotherapy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 38:2243–2250. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A5417 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131:803–820. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1
- 21.Mouridsen K, Christensen S, Gyldensted L, Ostergaard L (2006) Automatic selection of arterial input function using cluster analysis. Magn Reson Med 55:524–531. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20759
- 23.DCE MRI Technical Committee. DCE MRI Quantification Profile, Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance. Version 1.0. Reviewed Draft. QIBA, July 1, 2012. Available from: http://qibawiki.rsna.org/index.php/Profiles