Glioblastoma versus solitary brain metastasis: MRI differentiation using the edema perfusion gradient

ABSTRACT Background and Purpose Differentiation between glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and solitary brain metastasis (SBM) remains a challenge in neuroradiology with up to 40% of the cases to be incorrectly classified using only conventional MRI. The inclusion of perfusion MRI parameters provides cha...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of neuroimaging 2022-01, Vol.32 (1), p.127-133
Hauptverfasser: Aparici‐Robles, Fernando, Davidhi, Andjoli, Carot‐Sierra, José Miguel, Perez‐Girbes, Alexandre, Carreres‐Polo, Joan, Mazon Momparler, Miguel, Juan ‐ Albarracín, Javier, Fuster‐Garcia, Elies, Garcia‐Gomez, Juan Miguel
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:ABSTRACT Background and Purpose Differentiation between glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and solitary brain metastasis (SBM) remains a challenge in neuroradiology with up to 40% of the cases to be incorrectly classified using only conventional MRI. The inclusion of perfusion MRI parameters provides characteristic features that could support the distinction of these pathological entities. On these grounds, we aim to use a perfusion gradient in the peritumoral edema. Methods Twenty‐four patients with GBM or an SBM underwent conventional and perfusion MR imaging sequences before tumors’ surgical resection. After postprocessing of the images, quantification of dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion parameters was made. Three concentric areas around the tumor were defined in each case. The monocompartimental and pharmacokinetics parameters of perfusion MRI were analyzed in both series. Results DSC perfusion MRI models can provide useful information for the differentiation between GBM and SBM. It can be observed that most of the perfusion MR parameters (relative cerebral blood volume, relative cerebral blood flow, relative Ktrans, and relative volume fraction of the interstitial space) clearly show higher gradient for GBM than SBM. GBM also demonstrates higher heterogeneity in the peritumoral edema and most of the perfusion parameters demonstrate higher gradients in the area closest to the enhancing tumor. Conclusion Our results show that there is a difference in the perfusion parameters of the edema between GBM and SBM demonstrating a vascularization gradient. This could help not only for the diagnosis, but also for planning surgical or radiotherapy treatments delineating the real extension of the tumor.
ISSN:1051-2284
1552-6569
DOI:10.1111/jon.12920