. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Aug 1.

Published in final edited form as: Magn Reson Med. 2015 Sep 12;76(2):613–625. doi: 10.1002/mrm.25906

Table 1.

Relative CBV and CBF parameters in 9L and C6 tumors for dual-echo, correction methods 1-3, and MION. Slope, CCC, R, and p-values are obtained from each method versus MION.

		9L					C6

	Method	Mean (std)	slope^a	CCC^a	R^a	P-value^a	Mean (std)	slope^a	CCC^a	R^a	P-value^a

rCBV	Dual-Echo	1.81 (0.45)	1.48	0.30	0.78	0.003	1.57 (0.31)	1.81	0.30	0.83	0.006
	Method 1	1.04 (0.38)	1.17	0.48	0.73	0.007	1.24 (0.32)	1.90	0.65	0.86	0.003
	Method 2	1.02 (0.27)	0.90	0.47	0.78	0.003	1.17 (0.25)	1.66	0.79	0.96	<0.001
	Method 3	1.40 (0.37)	0.98	0.54	0.63	0.027	1.30 (0.34)	1.48	0.43	0.63	0.07
	MION	1.30 (0.24)	--	--	--	--	1.23 (0.14)	--	--	--	--
rCBF	Dual-Echo	0.88 (0.20)	0.51	0.40	0.54	0.07	1.13 (0.18)	0.37	0.34	0.43	0.25
	Method 1	0.83 (0.20)	0.49	0.32	0.51	0.09	1.08 (0.19)	0.44	0.33	0.47	0.20
	Method 2	0.81 (0.18)	0.49	0.31	0.57	0.05	1.07 (0.17)	0.36	0.27	0.44	0.24
	Method 3	0.87 (0.19)	0.48	0.37	0.52	0.08	1.10 (0.20)	0.31	0.23	0.32	0.40
	MION	1.04 (0.21)	--	--	--	--	1.26 (0.20)	--	--	--	--

std: standard deviation; CCC: concordance correlation coefficient; R: Pearson's correlation coefficient;

between each method and MION