Display options
Cite
Khadem NR, Karimi S, Peck KK, et al. Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012;33(11):2178-85doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3104.
Khadem, N. R., Karimi, S., Peck, K. K., Yamada, Y., Lis, E., Lyo, J., Bilsky, M., Vargas, H. A., & Holodny, A. I. (2012). Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 33(11), 2178-85. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3104
Khadem, N R, et al. "Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging." AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology vol. 33,11 (2012): 2178-85. doi: https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3104
Khadem NR, Karimi S, Peck KK, Yamada Y, Lis E, Lyo J, Bilsky M, Vargas HA, Holodny AI. Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Dec;33(11):2178-85. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3104. Epub 2012 May 03. PMID: 22555585; PMCID: PMC7965584.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012 Dec;33(11):2178-85. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A3104. Epub 2012 May 03.

Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology

N R Khadem, S Karimi, K K Peck, Y Yamada, E Lis, J Lyo, M Bilsky, H A Vargas, A I Holodny

Affiliations

  1. Departments of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.

PMID: 22555585 PMCID: PMC7965584 DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3104

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The role of DCE-MR imaging in the study of bone marrow perfusion is only partially developed, though potential applications for routine use in the clinical setting are beginning to be described. We hypothesize that DCE-MR imaging can be used to discriminate between hypervascular and hypovascular metastases based on measured perfusion variables.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of 26 patients using conventional MR imaging and DCE-MR imaging. Patients were assigned to a hypervascular or hypovascular group based on tumor pathology. ROIs were drawn around normal-appearing bone marrow (internal controls) and enhancing tumor areas. Average wash-in enhancement slope, average peak enhancement signal percentage change, and average peak enhancement signal percentage change in areas of highest wash-in enhancement slope were calculated. Indices were compared among control, hypervascular, and hypovascular groups. Conventional imaging was assessed by calculating pre- to postgadolinium signal percentage changes in hypervascular and hypovascular lesions.

RESULTS: Hypervascular and hypovascular tumors differed significantly with regard to wash-in enhancement slope (P < .01; hypervascular 95% CI, 22.5-26.5 AU/s; hypovascular 95% CI, 14.1-20.9 AU/s) and peak enhancement signal percentage change in areas of highest wash-in enhancement slope (P < .01; hypervascular 95% CI, 174.1-323.3%; hypovascular 95% CI, 39.5-150.5%). Peak enhancement signal percentage change over all voxels was not significant (P = .62). Areas of normal-appearing marrow showed no appreciable contrast enhancement. Conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging was unable to differentiate between hypervascular and hypovascular tumors (P = .58).

CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrate that, unlike conventional MR imaging sequences, DCE-MR imaging may be a more accurate technique in discriminating hypervascular from hypovascular spinal metastases.

References

  1. Discov Med. 2011 Jun;11(61):505-11 - PubMed
  2. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2011 Feb;108(5):71-9; quiz 80 - PubMed
  3. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1996 Mar-Apr;6(2):311-21 - PubMed
  4. Ann Oncol. 2003 Jan;14(1):152-8 - PubMed
  5. Neurotherapeutics. 2009 Jul;6(3):598-603 - PubMed
  6. Tumori. 2005 Jul-Aug;91(4):325-30 - PubMed
  7. Eur Radiol. 2008 Sep;18(9):1876-83 - PubMed
  8. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002 Mar;15(3):308-14 - PubMed
  9. Comput Biomed Res. 1996 Jun;29(3):162-73 - PubMed
  10. Radiology. 2001 Jul;220(1):213-8 - PubMed
  11. Radiology. 1989 Jun;171(3):767-73 - PubMed
  12. Radiology. 1990 Feb;174(2):495-502 - PubMed
  13. Radiology. 1992 Jul;184(1):243-8 - PubMed
  14. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997 Nov-Dec;21(6):857-66 - PubMed
  15. Radiology. 2005 Sep;236(3):945-51 - PubMed
  16. J Surg Res. 2010 May 15;160(2):184-9 - PubMed
  17. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1995 Sep;165(3):593-8 - PubMed
  18. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 May;9(5):635-42 - PubMed
  19. Radiother Oncol. 2008 Feb;86(2):177-81 - PubMed
  20. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2009 Sep;9(9):1223-6 - PubMed
  21. Skeletal Radiol. 1997 Jul;26(7):414-8 - PubMed
  22. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Nov;25(9):1292-9 - PubMed
  23. Radiology. 2006 Dec;241(3):831-8 - PubMed
  24. Radiology. 2003 Dec;229(3):703-9 - PubMed
  25. Radiology. 1998 Sep;208(3):821-8 - PubMed
  26. Drug Resist Updat. 2009 Aug-Oct;12(4-5):114-26 - PubMed
  27. Radiology. 1994 Sep;192(3):835-43 - PubMed
  28. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Jan-Feb;7(1):241-50 - PubMed
  29. Radiology. 1989 Jul;172(1):215-8 - PubMed
  30. J Neurooncol. 2009 May;92(3):275-82 - PubMed
  31. Skeletal Radiol. 2005 Oct;34(10):632-8 - PubMed
  32. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Sep;10(3):286-94 - PubMed
  33. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2010 Sep;26(9):506-10 - PubMed
  34. J Formos Med Assoc. 1996 Apr;95(4):313-9 - PubMed

Substances

MeSH terms

Publication Types