4.5 Article

The Effect of Paramagnetic Contrast in Choline Peak in Patients with Glioblastoma Multiforme Might Not Be Significant

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 34, 期 1, 页码 80-84

出版社

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A3181

关键词

-

资金

  1. FAPESP-Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo
  2. Guerbet

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: H-1-MR spectroscopy is a useful tool in brain tumor evaluation. A critical point in obtaining representative spectra is the correct voxel positioning, which can be more accurate after Gd administration. Some experimental data suggested that Gd could cause Cho signal loss. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of Gd in the Cho peak area and width in patients with GBM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed multivoxel H-1-MR spectroscopy before and after Gd administration in 18 patients with GBM. Quantification of Cho peak area and width in each voxel was completed, and the Cho mean and maximum values before and after Gd injection were calculated in the tumor and contralateral hemisphere. Choline peak area and width values obtained before and after contrast were compared, considering as separate entities enhancing and nonenhancing tumoral voxels and the contralateral hemisphere. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were found for the Cho peak area mean values in the tumoral voxels or contralaterally (P > .05). A tendency for an increase in the Cho peak width mean value was found in the tumoral enhancing voxels (P = .055). A statistically significant decrease was found for the mean value of the maximum Cho peak area in enhancing tumoral voxels (P = .020). No significant differences were found in the nonenhancing tumoral voxels or contralaterally (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The injection of Gd before performing H-1-MR spectroscopy might not significantly affect the Cho peak area in patients with GBM. The paramagnetic contrast seems to cause a different effect, depending on Gd enhancement.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据