The patients' experience of neuroimaging of primary brain tumors: a cross-sectional survey study

PURPOSE: To gain insight into how patients with primary brain tumors experience MRI, follow-up protocols, and gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA) use. METHODS: Primary brain tumor patients answered a survey after their MRI exam. Questions were analyzed to determine trends in patients' experience regarding the scan itself, follow-up frequency, and the use of GBCAs. Subgroup analysis was performed on sex, lesion grade, age, and the number of scans. Subgroup comparison was made using the Pearson chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U-test for categorical and ordinal questions, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients, 93 had a histopathologically confirmed diagnosis, and seven were considered to have a slow-growing low-grade tumor after multidisciplinary assessment and follow-up. 61/100 patients were male, with a mean age ± standard deviation of 44 ± 14 years and 46 ± 13 years for the females. Fifty-nine patients had low-grade tumors. Patients consistently underestimated the number of their previous scans. 92% of primary brain tumor patients did not experience the MRI as bothering and 78% would not change the number of follow-up MRIs. 63% of the patients would prefer GBCA-free MRI scans if diagnostically equally accurate. Women found the MRI and receiving intravenous cannulas significantly more uncomfortable than men (p = 0.003). Age, diagnosis, and the number of previous scans had no relevant impact on the patient experience. CONCLUSION: Patients with primary brain tumors experienced current neuro-oncological MRI practice as positive. Especially women would, however, prefer GBCA-free imaging if diagnostically equally accurate. Patient knowledge of GBCAs was limited, indicating improvable patient information

Reproducibility of 3 T APT-CEST in Healthy Volunteers and Patients With Brain Glioma

BACKGROUND: Amide proton transfer (APT) imaging is a chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) technique offering potential clinical applications such as diagnosis, characterization, and treatment planning and monitoring in glioma patients. While APT-CEST has demonstrated high potential, reproducibility remains underexplored. PURPOSE: To investigate whether cerebral APT-CEST with clinically feasible scan time is reproducible in healthy tissue and glioma for clinical use at 3 T. STUDY TYPE: Prospective, longitudinal. SUBJECTS: Twenty-one healthy volunteers (11 females; mean age ± SD: 39 ± 11 years) and 6 glioma patients (3 females; 50 ± 17 years: 4 glioblastomas, 1 oligodendroglioma, 1 radiologically suspected low-grade glioma). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T, Turbo Spin Echo - ampling perfection with application optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution - chemical exchange saturation transfer (TSE SPACE-CEST). ASSESSMENT: APT-CEST measurement reproducibility was assessed within-session (glioma patients, scan session 1; healthy volunteers scan sessions 1, 2, and 3), between-sessions (healthy volunteers scan sessions 1 and 2), and between-days (healthy volunteers, scan sessions 1 and 3). The mean APTCEST values and standard deviation of the within-subject difference (SDdiff ) were calculated in whole tumor enclosed by regions of interest (ROIs) in patients, and eight ROIs in healthy volunteers-whole-brain, cortical gray matter, putamen, thalami, orbitofrontal gyri, occipital lobes, central brain-and compared. STATISTICAL TESTS: Brown-Forsythe tests and variance component analysis (VCA) were used to assess the reproducibility of ROIs for the three time intervals. Significance was set at P  P > 0.22). The within-session SDdiff of whole-brain was 0.2% in both healthy volunteers and patients, and 0.21% in the segmented tumor. VCA showed that within-session factors were the most important (60%) for scanning variance. DATA CONCLUSION: Cerebral APT-CEST imaging may show good scan-rescan reproducibility in healthy tissue and tumors with clinically feasible scan times at 3 T. Short-term measurement effects may be the dominant components for reproducibility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2