Literature DB >> 10954271

Discrimination between neoplastic and nonneoplastic brain lesions by use of proton MR spectroscopy: the limits of accuracy with a logistic regression model.

J Butzen1, R Prost, V Chetty, K Donahue, R Neppl, W Bowen, S J Li, V Haughton, L Mark, T Kim, W Mueller, G Meyer, H Krouwer, S Rand.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: The most accurate method of clinical MR spectroscopy (MRS) interpretation remains an open question. We sought to construct a logistic regression (LR) pattern recognition model for the discrimination of neoplastic from nonneoplastic brain lesions with MR imaging-guided single-voxel proton MRS data. We compared the LR sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve area (Az) with the sensitivity and specificity of blinded and unblinded qualitative MRS interpretations and a choline (Cho)/N-acetylaspartate (NAA) amplitude ratio criterion.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected brain neoplasms or recurrent neoplasia referred for MRS were enrolled once final diagnoses were established by histopathologic examination or serial neurologic examinations, laboratory data, and imaging studies. Control spectra from healthy adult volunteers were included. An LR model was constructed with 10 input variables, including seven metabolite resonance amplitudes, unsuppressed brain water content, water line width, and the final diagnosis (neoplasm versus nonneoplasm). The LR model output was the probability of tumor, for which a cutoff value was chosen to obtain comparable sensitivity and specificity. The LR sensitivity and specificity were compared with those of qualitative blinded interpretations from two readers (designated A and B), qualitative unblinded interpretations (in aggregate) from a group of five staff neuroradiologists and a spectroscopist, and a quantitative Cho/NAA amplitude ratio > 1 threshold for tumor. Sensitivities and specificities for each method were compared with McNemar's chi square analysis for binary tests and matched data with a significance level of 5%. ROC analyses were performed where possible, and Az values were compared with Metz's method (CORROC2) with a 5% significance level.
RESULTS: Of the 99 cases enrolled, 86 had neoplasms and 13 had nonneoplastic diagnoses. The discrimination of neoplastic from control spectra was trivial with the LR, reflecting high homogeneity among the control spectra. An LR cutoff probability for tumor of 0.8 yielded a specificity of 87%, a comparable sensitivity of 85%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.96. Sensitivities, specificities, and ROC areas (where available) for the other methods were, on average, 82%, 74%, and 0.82, respectively, for readers A and B, 89% (sensitivity) and 92% (specificity) for the group of unblinded readers, and 79% (sensitivity), 77% (specificity), and 0.84 (Az) for the Cho/NAA > 1 criterion. McNemar's analysis yielded significant differences in sensitivity (n approximately 86 neoplasms) between the LR and reader A, and between the LR and the Cho/NAA > 1 criterion. The differences in specificity between the LR and all other methods were not significant (n approximately 13 nonneoplasms). Metz's analysis revealed a significant difference in Az between the LR and the Cho/NAA ratio criterion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10954271      PMCID: PMC8174924     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  9 in total

1.  Brain tumors: localized H-1 MR spectroscopy at 0.5 T.

Authors:  R Prost; V Haughton; S J Li
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Matchmaking and McNemar in the comparison of diagnostic modalities.

Authors:  A J Dwyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies.

Authors:  C E Metz
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 6.016

4.  The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1982-04       Impact factor: 11.105

5.  Detection of glutamate/glutamine resonances by 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 0.5 tesla.

Authors:  R W Prost; L Mark; M Mewissen; S J Li
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 4.668

6.  Accuracy of single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy in distinguishing neoplastic from nonneoplastic brain lesions.

Authors:  S D Rand; R Prost; V Haughton; L Mark; J Strainer; J Johansen; T A Kim; V K Chetty; W Mueller; G Meyer; H Krouwer
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 3.825

7.  Single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy of nonneoplastic brain lesions suggestive of a neoplasm.

Authors:  H G Krouwer; T A Kim; S D Rand; R W Prost; V M Haughton; K C Ho; S S Jaradeh; G A Meyer; K A Blindauer; J F Cusick; G L Morris; P R Walsh
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.825

8.  Mapping of brain tumor metabolites with proton MR spectroscopic imaging: clinical relevance.

Authors:  M J Fulham; A Bizzi; M J Dietz; H H Shih; R Raman; G S Sobering; J A Frank; A J Dwyer; J R Alger; G Di Chiro
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Accurate, noninvasive diagnosis of human brain tumors by using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.

Authors:  M C Preul; Z Caramanos; D L Collins; J G Villemure; R Leblanc; A Olivier; R Pokrupa; D L Arnold
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 53.440

  9 in total
  8 in total

Review 1.  A systematic literature review of magnetic resonance spectroscopy for the characterization of brain tumors.

Authors:  W Hollingworth; L S Medina; R E Lenkinski; D K Shibata; B Bernal; D Zurakowski; B Comstock; J G Jarvik
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 2.  Imaging of brain tumors: MR spectroscopy and metabolic imaging.

Authors:  Alena Horská; Peter B Barker
Journal:  Neuroimaging Clin N Am       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.264

3.  Combination of single-voxel proton MR spectroscopy and apparent diffusion coefficient calculation in the evaluation of common brain tumors.

Authors:  Nail Bulakbasi; Murat Kocaoglu; Fatih Ors; Cem Tayfun; Taner Uçöz
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.825

4.  Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging.

Authors:  Meng Law; Stanley Yang; Hao Wang; James S Babb; Glyn Johnson; Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; David Zagzag
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2003 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Can proton MR spectroscopic and perfusion imaging differentiate between neoplastic and nonneoplastic brain lesions in adults?

Authors:  R Hourani; L J Brant; T Rizk; J D Weingart; P B Barker; A Horská
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2007-11-30       Impact factor: 3.825

6.  A method for cranial target delineation in radiotherapy treatment planning aided by single-voxel magnetic resonance spectroscopy: evaluation using a custom-designed gel-based phantom and simulations.

Authors:  Banafsheh Zeinali-Rafsanjani; Mohammad Amin Mosleh-Shirazi; Reza Faghihi; Mahdi Saeedi-Moghadam; Mehrzad Lotfi; Reza Jalli
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-10-03       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  A comprehensive meta-analysis of circulation miRNAs in glioma as potential diagnostic biomarker.

Authors:  Chenkai Ma; Hong P T Nguyen; Rodney B Luwor; Stanley S Stylli; Andrew Gogos; Lucia Paradiso; Andrew H Kaye; Andrew P Morokoff
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Higher Cho/NAA Ratio in Postoperative Peritumoral Edema Zone Is Associated With Earlier Recurrence of Glioblastoma.

Authors:  Yong Cui; Wei Zeng; Haihui Jiang; Xiaohui Ren; Song Lin; Yanzhu Fan; Yapeng Liu; Jizong Zhao
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2020-12-04       Impact factor: 4.003

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.