Table 1.

Comparison of Modalities used for Stereotactic Radiosurgery planning for treatment of AVMs

Modality	Advantages	Limitations
CTA	1.) Non-invasive 2.) 3D-visualization and reconstruction 3.) Improved spatial resolution in comparison to MRA	1.) Large contrast bolus 2.) Temporal resolution not possible 3.) Heavily affected by metal or embolic material artifact causing a star-burst appearance
MRA	1.) Non-invasive 2.) 3D-visualization and reconstruction 3.) No associated radiation 4.) Contrast is not necessary in Time of Flight MRA	1.)Prone to clip artifact 2.) Poor spatial resolution 3.) Lesion visualization dependent on flow rate 4.) Temporal resolution not possible 5.) Long acquisition time
DSA	1.) Improved spatial resolution compared to CTA or MRA 2.) Presence of temporal resolution 3.) Can subselect compartments of AVM	1.) 2-D visualization (projections) of a 3-D lesion 2.) Prone to error in nidus size and shape delineation 3.) 2-D nature leads to over inclusion of healthy adjacent tissue in treatment
3DRA	1.) 3D-Visualization and reconstruction 2.) Improved spatial resolution of lesion anatomy and filling patterns compared to DSA 3) Venous phase potentially not well visualized	1.)Inability to incorporate fiducial frame into data set in some systems 2.) Must be fused with another data set for treatment
CBCT-A	1.) Higher spatial resolution of intracranial vasculature 2.) Higher sensitivity for lesions than DSA or 3DRA 3.) 3D-visualization and reconstruction 4.) Ability to incorporate frame into data set 5.)Can be applied to 3D data sets and multi-planar reconstruction	1.) Heavily affected by metal or embolic material artifact causing a star-burst appearance 2.) Longer acquisition time than 3DRA or DSA 3.) Degraded by Patient movement

* 3DRA- 3D-Rotational Angiography; CBCT-A- Cone Beam Computed Tomography Angiography; CTA- Computed Tomogrophy Angiography; DSA- Digital Subtraction Angiography; MRA - Magnetic Resonance Angiography