Perfusion magnetic resonance imaging: Comparison of semiologic characteristics in first-pass perfusion of brain tumors at 1.5 and 3 Tesla

Variability and accuracy of different software packages for dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging for distinguishing glioblastoma progression from pseudoprogression

“…This observation is further confirmation of a study that imaged 21 patients at both 1.5 and 3 T and found that the 3 T rCBV was statistically significantly greater for the tumors (p ¼ :0041). 30 While that study had differences in acquisition parameters besides field strength, our study confirms those findings with the magnet strength being the only variable. The superior performance of 3 T is likely due to the increased T1 and susceptibility weighting for 3 T versus 1.5 T. For this reason, 1.5 and 3 T data should not be pooled together for accuracy analysis since they likely have different optimal thresholds.…”

Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of DSC- and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in the Preoperative Grading of Astrocytomas

“…Another limitation is that rCBV is dependent on field strength, sequence parameters, and relaxivity of the contrast agent used. 22,23 A preinjection of contrast is also desirable to decrease T1 effects that could arise from contrast extravasation and could cause an underestimation of rCBV. 5 DCE imaging can provide absolute measurements of plasma volume and K trans , which could be useful as biomarkers for angiogenesis.…”

Imaging of gliomas at 1.5 and 3 Tesla - A comparative study

“…11 We further found that rCBV values were consistent between 1.5 and 3T, whereas higher rCBV values at 3T in comparison with 1.5T have been reported in a small series of intra-axial space-occupying lesions. 22 These differences may, at least in part, be related to differences in the PWI sequence parameters between the 1.5 and 3T MRI used in the latter study, whereas our parameters were kept almost identical between the 2 MR fields. Our results should, however, be interpreted with caution given that most participants had rCBV values well below the 1.75 23 cut-off at both 1.5 and 3T and therefore did not encompass the whole spectrum of brain gliomas, particularly glioblastomas.…”