Own experience of mri T2 and ct perfusion of the brain, how to avoid «failures»

Introduction. To reduce the number of cerebral perfusion studies, the interpretation of which is not possible or can be performed with errors, we retrospectively analyzed cerebral perfusion studies for three years, analyzed the identified errors at the stage of data collection and the stage of study interpretation.

Aims and objectives: to analyze and divide into groups the reasons that led to limitations or impossibility to assess perfusion during interpretation of the obtained data, to develop an algorithm of actions to reduce the number of uninterpreted studies.

Materials and Methods. The study retrospectively evaluated 275 CT and MRI brain perfusion studies performed between 2017 and 2019 on 1.5 T MR and 32-slice CT scans.

Results. The result of this study was a better understanding of the causes of the most common errors in perfusion studies. Analysis of the causes allowed us to identify factors that affect the performance of the study and the interpretation of the data obtained. 
Discussion. In order to perform a quality perfusion study, given the many factors affecting the interpretation of the data obtained, a number of conditions on the planning and execution of the study, as well as on the evaluation of the data obtained, must be followed.

Conclusions. Understanding the reasons that lead to limitations or inability to evaluate MRI and CT perfusion studies, adhering to guidelines for planning and evaluating studies allows for correct data and avoids obtaining uninformative studies or studies whose interpretation is limited.

1. Сопоставление информативности МР-перфузии и ПЭТ с [11С] метионином в дифференциации продолженного роста церебральных опухолей и лучевых поражений головного мозга после комбинированного лечения / Ж. И. Савинцева, Т. Н. Трофимова, Т. Ю. Скворцова, З. Л. Бродская // Медицинская визуализация. – 2014. – № 5. – С. 10-19.

2. Cha, S. Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology // AJNR. – 2006. – Vol. 27. – Р. 475–487.

3. Paldino, M. J. Fundamentals of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging / M. J. Paldino, D. P.Barboriak // Magn. Reson. Imaging Clin. N. Am. – 2009. – Vol. 17. – Р. 277-289.

4. Jackson, A. Analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI // Br J Radiol. – 2004. – Vol. 77 (2). – P. 154–166.

5. A control point interpolation method for the non-parametric quanti cation of cerebral haemodynamics from dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI / Mehndiratta A., MacIntosh B. J., Crane D. E. [et al.] // Neuroimage. – 2013. – Vol. 64. – Р. 560–70.

6. MR perfusion imaging of the brain: techniques and applications / J. R. Petrella, J. M. Provenzale // AJR Am J Roentgenol. – 2000. – Vol. 175 (1). – Р. 207-19. – Doi: 10.2214/ajr.175.1.1750207.

7. Patil, V. An improved model for describing the contrast bolus in perfusion MRI / V. Patil, G. Johnson // Med Phys. – 2011. – Vol. 38. – Р. 6380-3.

8. Korfiatis, P. The basics of diffusion and perfusion imaging in brain tumors / P. Korfiatis, B. Erickson // Appl Radiol. 2014 – Vol. 43 (7). – Р. 22-29.

9. American Society of Functional Neuroradiology MR Perfusion Standards and Practice Subcommittee of the ASFNR Clinical Practice Committee. ASFNR recommendations for clinical performance of MR dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging of the brain / K. Welker, J. Boxerman, A. Kalnin [et al.] // AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. – 2015. – Vol. 36 (6). – Р. E41-51.

10. Longitudinal DSC-MRI for distinguishing tumor recurrence from pseu – doprogression in patients with a high-grade glioma / J. L. Boxerman, B. M. Ellingson, S. Jeyapalan [et al.] // Am J Clin Oncol. – 2017. – Vol. 40 (3). – Р. 228-234. – Doi: 10.1097/COC.0000000000000156.

11. Differentiation of Recurrent Glioblastoma Multiforme from Radiation Necrosis after External Beam Radiation Therapy with Dynamic Susceptibility-weighted Contrast-enhanced Perfusion MR Imaging / R. F. Barajas, J. S. Chang, M. R. Segal [et al.] // Radiology. – 2009. – P. 486-496.

12. Pseudoprogression of glioblastoma a er chemo– and radiation therapy: diagnosis by using dynamic susceptibility weighted contrast-enhanced per– fusion MR imaging with ferumoxytol versus gadoteridol and correlation with survival / Gahramanov S., Muldoon L. L., Varallyay C. G. [et al.] // Radiology. – 2013. – Vol. 266. – Р. 842–52.

13. Support vector machine multiparametric MRI identi cation of pseudoprogression from tumor recur– rence in patients with resected glioblastoma / Hu X., Wong K. K., Young G. S. [et al.] // J Magn Reson Imaging. – 2011. – Vol. 33. – Р. 296-305.

14. Трофимова, Т. Н. Нейрорадиология: оценка эффективности хирургии и комбинированной терапии глиом // Практическая онкология. – 2016. – Т. 17, № 1. – С.32-40.

15. Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions / Essig M., Shiroishi M. S., Nguyen T. B. [et al.] // AJR Am J Roentgenol. – 2013. – Р. 24-34.

16. Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive update on principles and techniques / G-H. Jahng, K-L. Li, l. Ostergaard, F. Calamante // Korean J Radiol. – 2014. – P. 554-577.

17. Is Weissko model valid for the correction of contrast agent extravasation with combined T1 and T2* e ects in dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI? / Liu H. L., Wu Y. Y., Yang W. S. [et al.] // Med Phys. – 2011. – Vol. 38. – Р. 802-9.

18. Clinical application of perfusion computed tomography in neurosurgery / A. P. Huang, J. C. Tsai, L. T. Kuo [et al.] // J. Neurosurg. – 2014. – Vol. 120 (2). – P.473-488.

19. Petrella, J. R. MR perfusion imaging of the brain: techniques and applications / J. R. Petrella, J. M. Provenzale // AJR Am J Roentgenol. – 2000. – Vol. 175. – Р. 207-19.

20. Quantitative Perfusion and Permeability Biomarkers in Brain Cancer from Tomographic CT and MR Images / Eilaghi A., Yeung T., d'Esterre C. [et al.] // Biomark Cancer. – 2016. – 8 (2). – Р. 47-59. – Doi:10.4137/BIC.S31801.