Prediction of Pseudoprogression in Patients with Glioblastomas Using the Initial and Final Area Under the Curves Ratio Derived from Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted Perfusion MR Imaging

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   1. Gasparetto EL,
   2. Pawlak MA,
   3. Patel SH,
   4. et al

   . Posttreatment recurrence of malignant brain neoplasm: accuracy of relative cerebral blood volume fraction in discriminating low from high malignant histologic volume fraction. Radiology 2009;250:887–96

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   1. Chamberlain MC

   . Pseudoprogression in glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 2008;26:4359; author reply 4360

   FREE Full Text
3. 3.↵
   1. Fatterpekar GM,
   2. Galheigo D,
   3. Narayana A,
   4. et al

   . Treatment-related change versus tumor recurrence in high-grade gliomas: a diagnostic conundrum–use of dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:19–26

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   1. Hu X,
   2. Wong KK,
   3. Young GS,
   4. et al

   . Support vector machine multiparametric MRI identification of pseudoprogression from tumor recurrence in patients with resected glioblastoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;33:296–305

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   1. Nihashi T,
   2. Dahabreh IJ,
   3. Terasawa T

   . Diagnostic accuracy of PET for recurrent glioma diagnosis: a meta-analysis. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2013;34:944–50

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
6. 6.↵
   1. Roberts C,
   2. Issa B,
   3. Stone A,
   4. et al

   . Comparative study into the robustness of compartmental modeling and model-free analysis in DCE-MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:554–63

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
7. 7.↵
   1. Cheng HL

   . Improved correlation to quantitative DCE-MRI pharmacokinetic parameters using a modified initial area under the uptake curve (mIAUC) approach. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30:864–72

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   1. Liu G,
   2. Rugo HS,
   3. Wilding G,
   4. et al

   . Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a pharmacodynamic measure of response after acute dosing of AG-013736, an oral angiogenesis inhibitor, in patients with advanced solid tumors: results from a phase I study. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:5464–73

   Abstract/FREE Full Text
9. 9.↵
   1. Pope WB,
   2. Kim HJ,
   3. Huo J,
   4. et al

   . Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology 2009;252:182–89

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    1. Wen PY,
    2. Macdonald DR,
    3. Reardon DA,
    4. et al

    . Updated response assessment criteria for high-grade gliomas: response assessment in neuro-oncology working group. J Clin Oncol 2010;28:1963–72

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
11. 11.↵
    1. Evelhoch JL,
    2. LoRusso PM,
    3. He Z,
    4. et al

    . Magnetic resonance imaging measurements of the response of murine and human tumors to the vascular-targeting agent ZD6126. Clin Cancer Res 2004;10:3650–57

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
12. 12.↵
    1. Tozer DJ,
    2. Jager HR,
    3. Danchaivijitr N,
    4. et al

    . Apparent diffusion coefficient histograms may predict low-grade glioma subtype. NMR Biomed 2007;20:49–57

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
13. 13.↵
    1. DeLong ER,
    2. DeLong DM,
    3. Clarke-Pearson DL

    . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    1. Evelhoch JL

    . Key factors in the acquisition of contrast kinetic data for oncology. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:254–59

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
15. 15.↵
    1. Narang J,
    2. Jain R,
    3. Arbab AS,
    4. et al

    . Differentiating treatment-induced necrosis from recurrent/progressive brain tumor using nonmodel-based semiquantitative indices derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR perfusion. Neuro Oncol 2011;13:1037–46

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
16. 16.↵
    1. Kiselev VG

    . On the theoretical basis of perfusion measurements by dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:1113–22

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
17. 17.↵
    1. Larsen VA,
    2. Simonsen HJ,
    3. Law I,
    4. et al

    . Evaluation of dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted perfusion MRI in the differentiation of tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis. Neuroradiology 2013;55:361–69

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    1. Walker-Samuel S,
    2. Leach MO,
    3. Collins DJ

    . Evaluation of response to treatment using DCE-MRI: the relationship between initial area under the gadolinium curve (IAUGC) and quantitative pharmacokinetic analysis. Phys Med Biol 2006;51:3593–602

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
19. 19.↵
    1. Bisdas S,
    2. Naegele T,
    3. Ritz R,
    4. et al

    . Distinguishing recurrent high-grade gliomas from radiation injury: a pilot study using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Acad Radiol 2011;18:575–83

    CrossRefPubMed
20. 20.↵
    1. Levy LM

    . What is right about MRI permeability studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:3–4

    FREE Full Text
21. 21.↵
    1. Hu LS,
    2. Baxter LC,
    3. Smith KA,
    4. et al

    . Relative cerebral blood volume values to differentiate high-grade glioma recurrence from posttreatment radiation effect: direct correlation between image-guided tissue histopathology and localized dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30:552–58

    Abstract/FREE Full Text