Rationale and Objectives: To compare quantitative imaging parameter measures from diffusion- and perfusion-weighted imaging magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences in subjects with brain tumors that have been processed with different software platforms. Materials and Methods: Scans from 20 subjects with primary brain tumors were selected from the Comprehensive Neuro-oncology Data Repository at Washington University School of Medicine (WUSM) and the Swedish Neuroscience Institute. MR images were coregistered, and each subject's data set was processed by three software packages: 1) vendor-specific scanner software, 2) research software developed at WUSM, and 3) a commercially available, Food and Drug Administration-approved, processing platform (Nordic Ice). Regions of interest (ROIs) were chosen within the brain tumor and normal nontumor tissue. The results obtained using these methods were compared. Results: For diffusion parameters, including mean diffusivity and fractional anisotropy, concordance was high when comparing different processing methods. For perfusion-imaging parameters, a significant variance in cerebral blood volume, cerebral blood flow, and mean transit time (MTT) values was seen when comparing the same raw data processed using different software platforms. Correlation was better with larger ROIs (radii≥5mm). Greatest variance was observed in MTT. Conclusions: Diffusion parameter values were consistent across different software processing platforms. Perfusion parameter values were more variable and were influenced by the software used. Variation in the MTT was especially large suggesting that MTT estimation may be unreliable in tumor tissues using current MRI perfusion methods.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1294-1303
Number of pages10
JournalAcademic radiology
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014


  • Cerebral diffusion
  • Cerebral perfusion
  • MRI
  • Tumor imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of perfusion- and diffusion-weighted imaging parameters in brain tumor studies processed using different software platforms'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this