Literature DB >> 11303886

Comparison of visual and ROI-based brain tumour grading using 18F-FDG PET: ROC analyses.

P T Meyer1, M Schreckenberger, U Spetzger, G F Meyer, O Sabri, K S Setani, T Zeggel, U Buell.   

Abstract

Several studies have suggested that the use of simple visual interpretation criteria for the investigation of brain tumours by positron emission tomography with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG-PET) might be similarly or even more accurate than quantitative or semi-quantitative approaches. We investigated this hypothesis by comparing the accuracy of FDG-PET brain tumour grading using a proposed six-step visual grading scale (VGS; applied by three independent observers unaware of the clinical history and the results of histopathology) and three different region of interest (ROI) ratios (maximal tumour uptake compared with contralateral tissue [Tu/Tis], grey matter [Tu/GM] and white matter [Tu/WM]). The patient population comprised 47 patients suffering from 17 benign (7 gliomas of grade II, 10 non-gliomatous tumours) and 30 malignant (23 gliomas of grade III-IV, 7 non-gliomatous tumours) tumours. The VGS results were highly correlated with the different ROI ratios (R=0.91 for Tu/GM, R=0.82 for Tu/WM, and R=0.79 for Tu/Tis), and high inter-observer agreement was achieved (kappa=0.63, 0.76 and 0.81 for the three observers). The mean ROI ratios and VGS readings of gliomatous and non-gliomatous lesions were not significantly different. For all measures, high-grade lesions showed significantly higher FDG uptake than low-grade lesions (P<0.005 to P<0.0001, depending on the measure used). Nominal logistic regressions and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used to calculate cut-off values to differentiate low- from high-grade lesions. The predicted (by ROC) diagnostic sensitivity/specificity of the different tests (cut-off ratios shown in parentheses) were: Tu/GM: 0.87/0.85 (0.7), Tu/WM: 0.93/0.80 (1.3). Tu/Tis: 0.80/0.80 (0.8) and VGS: 0.84/0.95 (uptake < GM, but >> WM). The VGS yielded the highest Az (+/-SE) value (i.e. area under the ROC curve as a measure of predicted accuracy), 0.97+/-0.03, which showed a strong tendency towards being significantly greater than the Az of Tu/Tis (0.88+/-0.06; P=0.06). Tu/GM (0.92+/-0.04) and Tu/WM (0.91+/-0.05) reached intermediate Az values (not significantly different from any other value). We conclude that the VGS represents a measure at least as accurate as the Tu/GM and Tu/WM ratios. The Tu/Tis ratio is less valid owing to the high dependence on the location of the lesion. Depending on the investigator's experience and the structure of the lesions, the easily used VGS might be the most favourable grading criterion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11303886     DOI: 10.1007/s002590000428

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med        ISSN: 0340-6997


  13 in total

1.  Metabolic and electrophysiological validation of functional MRI.

Authors:  T Krings; M Schreckenberger; V Rohde; H Foltys; U Spetzger; O Sabri; M H Reinges; S Kemeny; P T Meyer; W Möller-Hartmann; M Korinth; J M Gilsbach; U Buell; A Thron
Journal:  J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 10.154

2.  Independent prognostic value of pre-treatment 18-FDG-PET in high-grade gliomas.

Authors:  Cécile Colavolpe; Philippe Metellus; Julien Mancini; Maryline Barrie; Céline Béquet-Boucard; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Olivier Mundler; Olivier Chinot; Eric Guedj
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2011-12-15       Impact factor: 4.130

3.  Prediction of pathology and survival by FDG PET in gliomas.

Authors:  M V Padma; S Said; M Jacobs; D R Hwang; K Dunigan; M Satter; B Christian; J Ruppert; T Bernstein; G Kraus; J C Mantil
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.130

Review 4.  The use of "overall accuracy" to evaluate the validity of screening or diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Anthony J Alberg; Ji Wan Park; Brant W Hager; Malcolm V Brock; Marie Diener-West
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  FDG-PET predicts survival in recurrent high-grade gliomas treated with bevacizumab and irinotecan.

Authors:  Cécile Colavolpe; Olivier Chinot; Philippe Metellus; Julien Mancini; Maryline Barrie; Céline Bequet-Boucard; Emeline Tabouret; Olivier Mundler; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Eric Guedj
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2012-02-29       Impact factor: 12.300

6.  Incidence and patterns of neuraxis metastases in children with diffuse pontine glioma.

Authors:  Sridharan Gururangan; Colleen A McLaughlin; James Brashears; Melody A Watral; James Provenzale; R Edward Coleman; Edward C Halperin; Jennifer Quinn; David Reardon; James Vredenburgh; Allan Friedman; Henry S Friedman
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Comparison of proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy with fluorine-18 2-fluoro-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography for assessment of brain tumor progression.

Authors:  Farzin Imani; Fernando E Boada; Frank S Lieberman; Denise K Davis; Erin L Deeb; James M Mountz
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2010-12-14       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  [11C]methionine PET, histopathology, and survival in primary brain tumors and recurrence.

Authors:  S Ceyssens; K Van Laere; T de Groot; J Goffin; G Bormans; L Mortelmans
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Diagnostic accuracy of 201Thallium-SPECT and 18F-FDG-PET in the clinical assessment of glioma recurrence.

Authors:  Manuel Gómez-Río; Antonio Rodríguez-Fernández; Carlos Ramos-Font; Escarlata López-Ramírez; José Manuel Llamas-Elvira
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 9.236

10.  Direct comparison of 18F-FDG and 11C-methionine PET in suspected recurrence of glioma: sensitivity, inter-observer variability and prognostic value.

Authors:  Koen Van Laere; Sarah Ceyssens; Frank Van Calenbergh; Tjibbe de Groot; Johan Menten; Patrick Flamen; Guy Bormans; Luc Mortelmans
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2004-08-10       Impact factor: 9.236

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.