Research Article| Volume 14, ISSUE 5, P199-202, September 2005

Download started.


Restricted Magnetic Resonance Diffusion-Weighted Imaging With Mass Lesions Presenting as Acute Lesions

      Diffusion-weighted imaging is useful for diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke. However, metastatic brain lesions may also demonstrate restricted diffusion on magnetic resonance imaging. We describe 4 cases (3 with metastatic neoplasms and 1 with a meningioma) with positive findings by diffusion-weighted imaging.

      Key Words

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Mukherji S.K.
        • Chenevert T.L.
        • Castillo M.
        Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.
        J Neuroophthalmol. 2002; 22: 118-122
        • Shaefer P.W.
        Application of DWI in clinical neurology.
        J Neurol Sci. 2001; 186: S25-S35
        • Geijer B.
        • Holtas S.
        Diffusion-weighted imaging of brain metastases.
        Neuroradiology. 2002; 44: 568-573
        • Mori H.
        • Abe O.
        • Aoki S.
        • et al.
        Hemorrhagic brain metastases with high signal intensity on diffusion-weighted MR images.
        Acta Radiol. 2002; 43: 563-566
        • Herneth A.M.
        • Guccione S.
        • Bednarski M.
        Apparent diffusion coefficient.
        Eur J Radiol. 2003; 45: 208-213
        • Quadery F.A.
        • Okamoto K.
        Diffusion-weighted MRI of hemangioblastomas and the other cerebellar tumors.
        Neuroradiology. 2003; 45: 212-219