Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28034995›Full record

ArticleAJNR. American journal of neuroradiology2017

Effects of MRI Protocol Parameters, Preload Injection Dose, Fractionation Strategies, and Leakage Correction Algorithms on the Fidelity of Dynamic-Susceptibility Contrast MRI Estimates of Relative Cerebral Blood Volume in Gliomas.

K Leu, J L Boxerman, B M Ellingson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

K LeuFrom the University of California, Los Angeles Brain Tumor Imaging Laboratory (K.A.B.L., B.M.E.), Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers.ORCID 0000-0002-0523-1575
J L BoxermanDepartment of Diagnostic Imaging (J.L.B.), Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island.ORCID 0000-0002-0594-1542
B M EllingsonFrom the University of California, Los Angeles Brain Tumor Imaging Laboratory (K.A.B.L., B.M.E.), Center for Computer Vision and Imaging Biomarkers ellingson@mednet.ucla.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-2764-6640
MACOM (United States) · USBrown University · US

Funding

EPA EP-C-15-003
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and purposeDSC perfusion MR imaging assumes that the contrast agent remains intravascular; thus, disruptions in the blood-brain barrier common in brain tumors can lead to errors in the estimation of relative CBV. Acquisition strategies, including the choice of flip angle, TE, TR, and preload dose and incubation time, along with post hoc leakage-correction algorithms, have been proposed as means for combating these leakage effects. In the current study, we used DSC-MR imaging simulations to examine the influence of these various acquisition parameters and leakage-correction strategies on the faithful estimation of CBV. MATERIALS AND

methodsDSC-MR imaging simulations were performed in 250 tumors with perfusion characteristics randomly generated from the distributions of real tumor population data, and comparison of leakage-corrected CBV was performed with a theoretic curve with no permeability. Optimal strategies were determined by protocol with the lowest mean error.

resultsThe following acquisition strategies (flip angle/TE/TR and contrast dose allocation for preload and bolus) produced high CBV fidelity, as measured by the percentage difference from a hypothetic tumor with no leakage: 1) 35°/35 ms/1.5 seconds with no preload and full dose for DSC-MR imaging, 2) 35°/25 ms/1.5 seconds with ¼ dose preload and ¾ dose bolus, 3) 60°/35 ms/2.0 seconds with ½ dose preload and ½ dose bolus, and 4) 60°/35 ms/1.0 second with 1 dose preload and 1 dose bolus.

conclusionsResults suggest that a variety of strategies can yield similarly high fidelity in CBV estimation, namely those that balance T1- and T2*-relaxation effects due to contrast agent extravasation.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBrain NeoplasmsCerebral Blood VolumeContrast MediaDose Fractionation, RadiationExtravasation of Diagnostic and Therapeutic MaterialsGliomaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePerfusionContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID28034995
PMCPMC7959993
OpenAlexW2566059424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.