
Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging versus Contrast-enhanced US: A Comparison in Glioblastoma Surgery by Using Intraoperative Fusion Imaging
Author(s) -
Francesco Prada,
Valerio Vitale,
Massimiliano Del Bene,
Carlo Boffano,
Luca Maria Sconfienza,
Valentina Pinzi,
Giovanni Mauri,
Luigi Solbiati,
Georgios Sakas,
V. Kolev,
Ludovico D’Incerti,
Francesco DiMeco
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
radiology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.118
H-Index - 295
eISSN - 1527-1315
pISSN - 0033-8419
DOI - 10.1148/radiol.2017161206
Subject(s) - gadolinium , medicine , magnetic resonance imaging , contrast (vision) , glioblastoma , nuclear medicine , contrast enhancement , radiology , materials science , cancer research , artificial intelligence , computer science , metallurgy
Purpose To compare contrast material enhancement of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) with intraoperative contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (US) versus that with preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted magnetic resonance (MR) imaging by using real-time fusion imaging. Materials and Methods Ten patients with GBM were retrospectively identified by using routinely collected, anonymized data. Navigated contrast-enhanced US was performed after intravenous administration of contrast material before tumor resection. All patients underwent tumor excision with navigated intraoperative US guidance with use of fusion imaging between real-time intraoperative US and preoperative MR imaging. With use of fusion imaging, glioblastoma contrast enhancement at contrast-enhanced US (regarding location, morphologic features, margins, dimensions, and pattern) was compared with that at gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Results Fusion imaging for virtual navigation enabled matching of real-time contrast-enhanced US scans to corresponding coplanar preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR images in all cases, with a positional discrepancy of less than 2 mm. Contrast enhancement of gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging and contrast-enhanced US was superimposable in all cases with regard to location, margins, dimensions, and morphologic features. The qualitative analysis of contrast enhancement pattern demonstrated a similar distribution in contrast-enhanced US and gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging in nine patients: Seven lesions showed peripheral inhomogeneous ring enhancement, and two lesions showed a prevalent nodular pattern. In one patient, the contrast enhancement pattern differed between the two modalities: Contrast-enhanced US showed enhancement of the entire bulk of the tumor, whereas gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging demonstrated peripheral contrast enhancement. Conclusion Glioblastoma contrast enhancement with contrast-enhanced US is superimposable on that provided with preoperative gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging regarding location, margins, morphologic features, and dimensions, with a similar enhancement pattern in most cases. Thus, contrast-enhanced US is of potential use in the surgical management of GBM. © RSNA, 2017 Online supplemental material is available for this article.