...
首页> 外文期刊>European Journal of Radiology >Brain tumor perfusion: comparison of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using T1, T2, and T2* contrast, pulsed arterial spin labeling, and H2(15)O positron emission tomography.
【24h】

Brain tumor perfusion: comparison of dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging using T1, T2, and T2* contrast, pulsed arterial spin labeling, and H2(15)O positron emission tomography.

机译:脑肿瘤灌注:使用T1,T2和T2 *对比,脉冲动脉自旋标记和H2(15)O正电子发射断层扫描对动态对比增强磁共振成像进行比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVES: Different techniques for measuring of perfusion are clinically available, but these are usually applied to healthy brain tissue. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five different techniques were used here in 12 patients with brain tumors to investigate the impact of tumor vascularization on the perfusion signal: three qualitative dynamic contrast-enhanced/susceptibility-contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI/DSC-MRI) techniques exploiting T(1), T(2), T(2)(*) contrast, and two quantitative techniques, pulsed arterial spin labeling (PASL) and H(2)(15)O positron emission tomography (H(2)(15)O-PET). RESULTS: In a first approximation, a linear correlation was found between all five imaging modalities regarding the perfusion signal of both, normal brain tissue and tumor. The estimated values for tumor perfusion differed significantly between the techniques (1=methodical mean in arbitrary units): PASL: 0.83, H(2)(15)O-PET: 0.62, T(1)-DCE: 1.73, T(2)-DCE: 0.69, T(2)(*)-DSC: 0.89. CONCLUSIONS: The tumor perfusion values, determined with different techniques are not comparable. The T(2)(*)-DSC, here applied with contrast agent presaturation of extravascular space, and PASL depict median perfusion most reliably.
机译:目的:临床上可以使用多种测量灌注的技术,但是这些技术通常应用于健康的脑组织。材料与方法:在12例脑肿瘤患者中使用了五种不同的技术来研究肿瘤血管形成对灌注信号的影响:三种定性动态对比增强/药敏对比磁共振成像(DCE-MRI / DSC-MRI)利用T(1),T(2),T(2)(*)对比技术和两种定量技术,脉冲动脉自旋标记(PASL)和H(2)(15)O正电子发射断层扫描(H(2) (15)O-PET)。结果:在第一个近似值中,关于正常脑组织和肿瘤的灌注信号,在所有五种成像方式之间发现了线性相关性。两种技术之间的肿瘤灌注估计值存在显着差异(1 =以任意单位表示的方法平均值):PASL:0.83,H(2)(15)O-PET:0.62,T(1)-DCE:1.73,T(2 )-DCE:0.69,T(2)(*)-DSC:0.89。结论:采用不同技术确定的肿瘤灌注值无法比较。 T(2)(*)-DSC,在此处应用血管外腔造影剂预饱和,PASL最可靠地描述了中位灌注。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号