Neuroradiology
flow are increasingly linked to various neuropathologies or neurologic conditions, the continual improvement in visualizing cerebrovasculature
1. de Haen C, Conception of the first magnetic resonance imaging contrast agents: a brief history, Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2001;12:221–30.
2. Runge VM, Muroff LR, Jinkins JR, Central nervous system: review of clinical use of contrast media, Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2001;12:231–63.
3. Lee MA, Smith S, Palace J, et al., Spatial mapping of T2 and gadolinium-enhancing T1 lesion volumes in multiple sclerosis: evidence for distinct mechanisms of lesion genesis?, Brain, 1999;122( Pt 7):1261–70.
4. Essig M, Weber MA, von Tengg-Kobligk H, et al., Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of central nervous system tumors: agents, mechanisms, and applications, Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2006;17:89–106.
5. Payne GS, Charles-Edwards E, South CP, Applications of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy for planning external beam radiotherapy, Curr Med Imaging Rev, 2008;4:236–49.
6. Sze G, Milano E, Johnson C, et al., Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 1990;11:785–91.
7. Coles JP, Imaging after brain injury, Br J Anaesth, 2007;99:49–60. 8. Weber MA, Zoubaa S, Schlieter M, et al., Diagnostic performance of spectroscopic and perfusion MRI for distinction of brain tumors, Neurology, 2006;66:1899–906.
9. Law M, Yang S, Wang H, et al., Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2003;24:1989–98.
10. Christensen S, Mouridsen K, Wu O, et al., Comparison of 10 perfusion MRI parameters in 97 sub-6-hour stroke patients using voxel-based receiver operating characteristics analysis, Stroke, 2009;40:2055–61.
11. Fan GG, Deng QL, Wu ZH, et al., Usefulness of diffusion/perfusion-weighted MRI in patients with non-enhancing supratentorial brain gliomas: a valuable tool to predict tumour grading?, Br J Radiol, 2006;79:652–8.
12. Knopp EA, Cha S, Johnson G, et al., Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging, Radiology, 1999;211:791–8.
13. Rizzo L, Crasto S, Moruno P, et al., Role of diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MR imaging for brain tumour characterisation, Radiol Med, 2009;114:645–59.
14. Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Barboriak DP, Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response, Radiology, 2006;239:632–49.
15. Farr TD, Wegener S, Use of magnetic resonance imaging to predict outcome after stroke: a review of experimental and clinical evidence, J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2010;30:703–17.
16. Latchaw RE, Alberts MJ, Lev MH, et al., Recommendations for imaging of acute ischemic stroke: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association, Stroke, 2009;40:3646–78.
17. Masdeu JC, Irimia P, Asenbaum S, et al., EFNS guidelines on neuroimaging in acute stroke. Report of an EFNS task force, Eur J Neurol, 2006;13:1271–83.
18. Ozsarlak O, Van Goethem JW, Maes M, et al., MR angiography of the intracranial vessels: technical aspects and clinical applications, Neuroradiology, 2004;46:955–72.
19. Findlay JM, Marchak BE, Pelz DM, et al., Carotid endarterectomy: a review, Can J Neurol Sci, 2004;31:22–36.
20. Meaney JF, Goyen M, Recent advances in contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography, Eur Radiol, 2007;17(Suppl. 2):B2–6.
21. Giesel FL, Mehndiratta A, Essig M, High-relaxivity contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance neuroimaging: a review, Eur Radiol, 2010;20:2461–74.
22. Anzalone N, Scotti R, Iadanza A, MR angiography of the carotid arteries and intracranial circulation: advantage of a high relaxivity contrast agent, Neuroradiology, 2006;48(Suppl. 1):9–17.
23. Caravan P, Cloutier NJ, Greenfield MT, et al., The interaction of MS-325 with human serum albumin and its effect on proton relaxation rates, J Am Chem Soc, 2002;124:3152–62.
24. van der Molen AJ, Bellin M-F, Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast-media: differences in diagnostic efficacy, Eur J Radiol, 2008;66:168–74.
25. Cavagna FM, Maggioni F, Castelli P, et al., Gadolinium chelates with weak binding to serum proteins: a new class of high- efficiency, general purpose contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging, Invest Radiol, 1997;32:780–96.
26. Giesel FL, von Tengg-Kobligk H, Wilkinson ID, et al., Influence of human serum albumin on longitudinal and transverse relaxation rates (R1 and R2) of magnetic resonance contrast agents, Invest Radiol, 2006;41:222–8.
27. Caravan P, Protein-targeted gadolinium-based magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agents: design and mechanism of action, Acc Chem Res, 2009;42:851–62.
and disruptions in the integrity of the BBB will greatly aid in developing therapies that target aberrant angiogenesis.99
n
28. Goyen M, Gadofosveset-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography, Vasc Health Risk Manag, 2008;4:1–9.
29. Neuwelt EA, Mechanisms of disease: the blood–brain barrier, Neurosurgery, 2004;54:131–42.
30. Abbott NJ, Chugani DC, Zaharchuk G, et al., Delivery of imaging agents into brain, Adv Drug Deliv Rev, 1999;37:253–77.
31. Tofts PS, Kermode AG, Measurement of the blood–brain barrier permeability and leakage space using dynamic MR imaging. 1. Fundamental concepts, Magn Reson Med, 1991;17:357–67.
32. Roberts HC, Roberts TPL, Brasch RC, et al., Quantitative measurement of microvascular permeability in human brain tumors achieved using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging: correlation with histologic grade, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2000;21:891–9.
33. Provenzale JM, Mukundan S, Dewhirst M, The role of blood–brain barrier permeability in brain tumor imaging and therapeutics, AJR, 2005;185:763–7.
34. Israeli D, Tanne D, Daniels D, et al., The application of MRI for depiction of subtle blood brain barrier disruption in stroke, Int J Biol Sci, 2011;7:1–8.
35. Taheri S, Gasparovic C, Shah NJ, et al., Quantitative measurement of blood–brain barrier permeability in human using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI with fast T1 mapping, Magn Reson Med, 2011;65:1036–42.
36. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, et al., Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths, Invest Radiol, 2005;40:715–24.
37. Bleichner AG, Kanal E, A serial dilution study of gadolinium-based MR imaging contrast agents, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2008;29:668–73.
38. Eldredge HB, Spiller M, Chasse JM, et al., Species dependence on plasma protein binding and relaxivity of the gadolinium-based MRI contrast agent MS-325, Invest Radiol, 2006;41:229–43.
39. Adzamli K, Yablonskiy DA, Chicoine MR, et al., Albumin-binding MR blood pool agents as MRI contrast agents in an intracranial mouse glioma model, Magn Reson Med, 2003;49:586–90.
40. Al-Okaili RN, Krejza J, Wang S, et al., Advanced MR imaging techniques in the diagnosis of intraaxial brain tumors in adults, Radiographics, 2006;26(Suppl. 1):S173–89.
41. Senturk S, Oguz KK, Cila A, Dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted perfusion imaging of intracranial tumors: a study using a 3T MR scanner, Diagn Interv Radiol, 2009;15:3–12.
42. Young GS, Advanced MRI of adult brain tumors, Neurol Clin, 2007;25:947–73, viii.
43. Mardor Y, Roth Y, Ochershvilli A, et al., Pretreatment prediction of brain tumors’ response to radiation therapy using high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI, Neoplasia, 2004;6:136–42.
44. Knopp MV, Runge VM, Essig M, et al., Primary and secondary brain tumors at MR imaging: bicentric intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine, Radiology, 2004;230:55–64.
45. Maravilla KR, Maldjian JA, Schmalfuss IM, et al., Contrast enhancement of central nervous system lesions: multicenter intraindividual crossover comparative study of two MR contrast agents, Radiology, 2006;240:389–400.
46. Kuhn MJ, Picozzi P, Maldjian JA, et al., Evaluation of intraaxial enhancing brain tumors on magnetic resonance imaging: intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for visualization and assessment, and implications for surgical intervention, J Neurosurg, 2007;106:557–66.
47. Colosimo C, Knopp MV, Barreau X, et al., A comparison of Gd-BOPTA and Gd-DOTA for contrast-enhanced MRI of intracranial tumours, Neuroradiology, 2004;46:655–65.
48. Rumboldt Z, Rowley HA, Steinberg F, et al., Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intra-individual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine in MRI of brain tumors at 3 Tesla, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2009;29:760–7.
49. Rowley HA, Scialfa G, Gao P-Y, et al., Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of brain lesions: a large-scale intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadodiamide, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2008;29:1684–91.
50. Essig M, Tartaro A, Tartaglione T, et al., Enhancing lesions of the brain: intraindividual crossover comparison of contrast enhancement after gadobenate dimeglumine versus established gadolinium comparators, Acad Radiol, 2006;13:744–51.
51. Essig M, Rohrer M, Giesel F, et al., Human brain tumor imaging with a protein-binding MR contrast agent: initial experience, Eur Radiol, 2010;20:218–26.
52. Majos A, Wolak T, Bogorodzki P, et al., A blood pool contrast aided T1 functional MRI in patients with brain tumors – a preliminary study, Neuroradiology, 2011;53:523–31.
53. Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, et al., Dynamic contrast- enhanced T2-weighted MR imaging of recurrent malignant gliomas treated with thalidomide and carboplatin,
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2000;21:881–90.
54. Cha S, Knopp EA, Johnson G, et al., Intracranial mass lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced susceptibility-weighted echo-planar perfusion MR imaging, Radiology, 2002;223:11–29.
55. Emblem KE, Nedregaard B, Nome T, et al., Glioma grading by using histogram analysis of blood volume heterogeneity from MR-derived cerebral volume maps, Radiology, 2008;247:808–17.
56. Law M, Young RJ, Babb JS, et al., Gliomas: predicting time to progression or survival with cerebral blood volume measurements at dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging, Radiology, 2008;247:490–8.
57. Calli C, Kitis O, Yunten N, et al., Perfusion and diffusion MR imaging in enhancing malignant cerebral tumors, Eur J Radiol, 2006;58:394–403.
58. Fuss M, Wenz F, Scholdei R, et al., Radiation-induced regional cerebral blood volume (rCBV) changes in normal brain and low-grade astrocytomas: quantification and time and dose-dependent occurrence, Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys, 2000;48:53–8.
59. Dhermain FG, Hau P, Lanfermann H, et al., Advanced MRI and PET imaging for assessment of treatment response in patients with gliomas, Lancet Neurol, 2010;9:906–20.
60. Villringer A, Rosen BR, Belliveau JW, et al., Dynamic imaging with lanthanide chelates in normal brain: contrast due to magnetic susceptibility effects, Magn Reson Med, 1988;6:164–74.
61. Ostergaard L, Principles of cerebral perfusion imaging by bolus tracking, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2005;22:710–7.
62. Boxerman JL, Hamberg LM, Rosen BR, et al., MR contrast due to intravascular magnetic susceptibility perturbations, Magn Reson Med, 1995;34:555–66.
63. Tombach B, Benner T, Reimer P, et al., Do highly concentrated gadolinium chelates improve MR brain perfusion imaging? Intraindividually controlled randomized crossover concentration comparison study of 0.5 versus 1.0 mol/L gadobutrol, Radiology, 2003;226:880–8.
64. Essig M, Lodemann KP, Le-Huu M, et al., Intraindividual comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadobutrol for cerebral magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 1.5 T, Invest Radiol, 2006;41:256–63.
65. Cotton F, Hermier M, The advantage of high relaxivity contrast agents in brain perfusion, Eur Radiol, 2006;16(Suppl. 7):M16–26.
66. Cotton F, Diffusion-perfusion in intra-axial brain tumors with high relaxivity contrast agents, Neuroradiology, 2006;48(Suppl. 1):34–40.
67. Culebras A, Kase CS, Masdeu JC, et al., Practice guidelines for the use of imaging in transient ischemic attacks and acute stroke. A report of the Stroke Council, American Heart Association, Stroke, 1997;28:1480–97.
68. Srinivasan A, Goyal M, Al Azri F, et al., State-of-the-art imaging of acute stroke, Radiographics, 2006;26(Suppl. 1):S75–95.
69. Wittsack H-J, Ritzl A, Fink GR, et al., MR imaging in acute stroke: diffusion-weighted and perfusion imaging parameters for predicting infarct size, Radiology, 2002;222:397–403.
70. Fiebach JB, Schellinger PD, Jansen O, et al., CT and diffusion- weighted MR imaging in randomized order: diffusion-weighted imaging results in higher accuracy and lower interrater variability in the diagnosis of hyperacute ischemic stroke, Stroke, 2002;33:2206–10.
71. Warach S, Gaa J, Siewert B, et al., Acute human stroke studied by whole brain echo planar diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging, Ann Neurol, 1995;37:231–41.
72. Wu O, Koroshetz WJ, Ostergaard L, et al., Predicting tissue outcome in acute human cerebral ischemia using combined diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MR imaging, Stroke, 2001;32:933–42.
73. Hjort N, Butcher K, Davis SM, et al., Magnetic resonance imaging criteria for thrombolysis in acute cerebral infarct, Stroke, 2005;36:388–97.
74. Neumann-Haefelin T, Wittsack H-J, Wenserski F, et al., Diffusion- and perfusion-weighted MRI: the DWI/PWI mismatch ratio in acute stroke, Stroke, 1999;30:1591–7.
75. Ge Y, Multiple sclerosis: the role of MR imaging, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2006;27:1165–76.
76. Rovira A, Leon A, MR in the diagnosis and monitoring of multiple sclerosis: an overview, Eur J Radiol, 2008;67:409–14.
77. Barkhof F, The clinico-radiological paradox in multiple sclerosis revisited, Curr Opin Neurol, 2002;15:239–45.
78. Swanton JK, Rovira A, Tintore M, et al., MRI criteria for multiple sclerosis in patients presenting with clinically isolated syndromes: a multicentre retrospective study, Lancet Neurol, 2007;6:677–86.
79. Theberge J, Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in psychiatry, Top Magn Reson Imaging, 2008;19:111–30.
80. Yuan C, Kerwin WS, MRI of atherosclerosis, J Magn Reson Imaging, 2004;19:710–9.
81. Kerwin WS, Zhao X, Yuan C, et al., Contrast enhanced MR imaging of carotid atherosclerosis: dependence on contrast
14
US RADIOLOGY
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68