Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T01:15:05.064Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 25 - Permeability imaging in adult neoplasia

from Section 3 - Adult neoplasia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2013

Jonathan H. Gillard
University of Cambridge
Adam D. Waldman
Imperial College London
Peter B. Barker
The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
Get access



Dynamic imaging, or tracking, of a “bolus” of intravascularly administered tracer can be interpreted to yield information both from the “first pass,” relating primarily to tissue perfusion, or from later “pseudo steady-state” phases, relating to transendothelial transport of the tracer between intravascular and extravascular compartments. Clearly these two processes are intimately related and not trivially resolved by temporal considerations alone. Integrated models of contrast media delivery and equilibration are emerging. Nonetheless, a practical and pragmatic distinction is often drawn between first-pass (perfusion) imaging (0–60 s) and subsequent imaging sensitive to microvascular permeability (typically over a few minutes). Different imaging strategies to track gadolinium-diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid (Gd-DTPA) are conventionally chosen: for pseudo steady-state or “permeability” imaging, an imaging sequence sensitive to the T1 shortening effect of Gd-DTPA is commonly employed, whereas first-pass imaging tends to use an imaging approach sensitive to the magnetic susceptibility effect of the tracer (manifest as transient T2 shortening). It must, however, be emphasized that this is a practical convention, and both T2*- and T1-weighted approaches can be used to study both first pass and subsequent stages of tracer transport; their relative advantages and disadvantages (especially in terms of temporal and spatial resolution) are discussed below.

The theory of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), and derived permeability estimation, is related to the dynamic assessment of signal changes in a tissue voxel fed by an arterial tree and drained by the venous system. Simple kinetic models relate the volume of tracer “out” to be equal to the volume “in” (conservation of matter). Two-compartment models incorporate two environments (capillary and interstitium), the exchange of water between which is governed by rate constraints. A simple exploration of the mathematics reveals how parameters of the microvasculature, namely fractional blood volume (fBV), microvascular permeability and extravascular, extracellular space (EES), can be extracted from a single dynamic scan.

Clinical MR Neuroimaging
Physiological and Functional Techniques
, pp. 369 - 379
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Roberts, TPL, Noseworthy, MD. Contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging. In Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Oncology, eds. Jackson, A, Buckley, DL, Parker, GJM. Heidelberg: Springer, 2005, pp. 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, HC, Roberts, TP, Brasch, RC, Dillon, WP. 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: 891–899.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhu, XP, Li, KL, Jackson, A. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in cerebral tumours. In Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Oncology, eds. Jackson, A, Buckley, DL, Parker, GJM, Heidelberg: Springer, 2005, pp. 117–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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: 357–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, C, Jensen, FT. Differences in blood–tumour-barrier leakage of human intracranial tumours: quantitative monitoring of vasogenic oedema and its response to glucocorticoid treatment. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1998; 140: 919–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, G, Wetzel, S, Cha, S, et al. Simultaneous measurement of blood volume and vascular transfer constant by first pass pharmacokinetic modeling. In Proceeding of the 10th Annual Meeting of the International Society of Magn Reson Med, Hawaii, 2002.Google Scholar
Roberts, HC, Roberts, TP, Bollen, AW, et al. Correlation of microvascular permeability derived from dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with histologic grade and tumor labeling index: a study in human brain tumors. Acad Radiol 2001; 8: 384–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbier, EL, den Boer, JA, Peters, AR, et al. A model of the dual effect of gadopentetate dimeglumine on dynamic brain MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 242–253.3.0.CO;2-H>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Port, RE, Knopp, MV, Hoffmann, U, Milker-Zabel, S, Brix, G et al. Multicompartment analysis of gadolinium chelate kinetics: blood-tissue exchange in mammary tumors as monitored by dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999; 10: 233–241.3.0.CO;2-M>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludemann, L, Hamm, B, Zimmer, C. Pharmacokinetic analysis of glioma compartments with dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 18: 1201–1214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ludemann, L, Grieger, W, Wurm, R, Wust, P, Zimmer, C. Quantitative measurement of leakage volume and permeability in gliomas, meningiomas and brain metastases with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 23: 833–841.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cha, S, Yang, L, Johnson, G, et al. Comparison of microvascular permeability measurements, K(trans), determined with conventional steady-state T1-weighted and first-pass T2*-weighted MR imaging methods in gliomas and meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 409–417.Google Scholar
Yang, S, Law, M, Zagzag, D, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging measurements of endothelial permeability: differentiation between atypical and typical meningiomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 1554–1559.Google ScholarPubMed
Zhu, XP, Li, KL, Kamaly-Asl, ID, et al. Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space, and blood volume in brain tumors using combined T1 and T2 contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 11: 575–585.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Earnest, FT, Kelly, PJ, Scheithauer, BW, et al. Cerebral astrocytomas: histopathologic correlation of MR and CT contrast enhancement with stereotactic biopsy. Radiology 1988; 166: 823–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginsberg, LE, Fuller, GN, Hashmi, M, Leeds, NE, Schomer, DF. The significance of lack of MR contrast enhancement of supratentorial brain tumors in adults: histopathological evaluation of a series. Surg Neurol 1998; 49: 436–440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lev, MH, Rosen, BR. Clinical applications of intracranial perfusion MR imaging. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 1999; 9: 309–331.Google ScholarPubMed
Covarrubias, DJ, Rosen, BR, Lev, MH, et al. Dynamic magnetic resonance perfusion imaging of brain tumors. Oncologist 2004; 9: 528–537.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maia, AC, Malheiros, SM, da Rocha, AJ, et al. Stereotactic biopsy guidance in adults with supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas: role of perfusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurosurg 2004; 101: 970–976.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaskis, C, Stadnik, T, Michotte, A, Van Rompaey, KD, Haens, J. et al. Prognostic value of perfusion-weighted imaging in brain glioma: a prospective study. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2006; 148: 277–285; discussion 285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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: 490–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, GS, Advanced MRI of adult brain tumors. Neurol Clin 2007; 25: 947–973.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaur, B, Tan, C, Brat, DJ, Post, DE, van Meir, EG. Genetic and hypoxic regulation of angiogenesis in gliomas. J Neurooncol 2004; 70: 229–243.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folkman, JWhat is the evidence that tumors are angiogenesis dependent?J Natl Cancer Inst 1990; 82: 4–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folkman, J, Klagsbrun, M. Angiogenic factors. Science 1987; 235: 442–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keck, PJ, Hauser, SD, Krivi, G, et al. Vascular permeability factor, an endothelial cell mitogen related to PDGF. Science 1989; 246: 1309–1312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leung, DW, Cachianes, G, Kuang, WJ, Goeddel, DV, Ferrara, N. Vascular endothelial growth factor is a secreted angiogenic mitogen. Science 1989; 246: 1306–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berkman, RA, Merrill, MJ, Reinhold, WC, et al. Expression of the vascular permeability factor/vascular endothelial growth factor gene in central nervous system neoplasms. J Clin Invest 1993; 91: 153–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claes, A, and Leenders, W.Vessel normalization by VEGF inhibition. A complex story. Cancer Biol Ther 2008; 7: 1014–1016.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jain, RK, Normalization of tumor vasculature: an emerging concept in antiangiogenic therapy. Science 2005; 307: 58–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Claes, A, Gambarota, G, Hamans, B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging-based detection of glial brain tumors in mice after antiangiogenic treatment. Int J Cancer 2008; 122: 1981–1986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leclerc, X, Huisman, TA, Sorensen, AG. The potential of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS) in the diagnosis and management of patients with brain tumors. Curr Opin Oncol 2002; 14: 292–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsen, KI, Schroeder, P, Corby, R, Vucic, I, Bardo, DM. Advanced magnetic resonance imaging techniques to evaluate CNS glioma. Expert Rev Neurother 2005; 5 (Suppl 6) 3–S11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lemort, M, Canizares-Perez, AC, van der Stappen, A, Kampouridis, S. Progress in magnetic resonance imaging of brain tumours. Curr Opin Oncol 2007; 19: 616–622.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Østergaard, L, Hochberg, FH, Rabinov, JD, et al. Early changes measured by magnetic resonance imaging in cerebral blood flow, blood volume, and blood–brain barrier permeability following dexamethasone treatment in patients with brain tumors. J Neurosurg 1999; 90: 300–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quinones-Hinojosa, A, Sanai, N, Smith, JS, McDermott, MW. Techniques to assess the proliferative potential of brain tumors. J Neurooncol 2005; 74: 19–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gossmann, A, Helbich, TH, Kuriyama, N, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a surrogate marker of tumor response to anti-angiogenic therapy in a xenograft model of glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002; 15: 233–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bitzer, M, Opitz, H, Popp, J, et al. Angiogenesis and brain oedema in intracranial meningiomas: influence of vascular endothelial growth factor. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 1998; 140: 333–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lockwood, AH, Positron emission tomography in the study of hepatic encephalopathy. Metab Brain Dis 2002; 17: 431–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissenborn, K, Bokemeyer, M, Ahl, B, et al. Functional imaging of the brain in patients with liver cirrhosis. Metab Brain Dis 2004; 19: 268–280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomsen, HS, Marckmann, P, Logager, VB. Update on nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2008; 16: 551–560, vii.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nainani, N, Panesar, M. Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Am J Nephrol 2009; 29: 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckley, DL, Uncertainty in the analysis of tracer kinetics using dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI. Magn Reson Med 2002; 47: 601–606.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats