OBJECTIVE: ADC calculation can improve the diagnostic efficacy of MR imaging in brain tumor grading and differentiation. METHODS: Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and ratios of 33 low-grade (23 astrocytomas, 10 oligodendrogliomas) and 40 high-grade (25 metastases and 15 high-grade astrocytomas) malignant tumors were prospectively evaluated. RESULTS: Tumoral ADC values (r=-0.738, P <0.000) and ratios (r=-0.746, P < 0.000) were well correlated with higher degree of malignancy and quite effective in grading of malignant brain tumors (P < 0.000). By using cutoff values of 0.99 for tumoral ADC value and 1.22 for normalized ADC ratio, the sensitivity of MR imaging could be increased from 72.22% to 93.75% and 90.63%, the specificity from 81.08% to 92.68% and 90.24%, PPV from 78.79% to 90.91% and 87.88%, and NPV from 75.00% to 95.00% and 92.50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ADC calculation was quite effective in grading of malignant brain tumors but not in differentiation of them and added more information to conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging.
OBJECTIVE: ADC calculation can improve the diagnostic efficacy of MR imaging in brain tumor grading and differentiation. METHODS: Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and ratios of 33 low-grade (23 astrocytomas, 10 oligodendrogliomas) and 40 high-grade (25 metastases and 15 high-grade astrocytomas) malignant tumors were prospectively evaluated. RESULTS:Tumoral ADC values (r=-0.738, P <0.000) and ratios (r=-0.746, P < 0.000) were well correlated with higher degree of malignancy and quite effective in grading of malignant brain tumors (P < 0.000). By using cutoff values of 0.99 for tumoral ADC value and 1.22 for normalized ADC ratio, the sensitivity of MR imaging could be increased from 72.22% to 93.75% and 90.63%, the specificity from 81.08% to 92.68% and 90.24%, PPV from 78.79% to 90.91% and 87.88%, and NPV from 75.00% to 95.00% and 92.50%, respectively. CONCLUSION: ADC calculation was quite effective in grading of malignant brain tumors but not in differentiation of them and added more information to conventional contrast-enhanced MR imaging.
Authors: Craig J Galbán; Stefanie Galbán; Marcian E Van Dort; Gary D Luker; Mahaveer S Bhojani; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci Date: 2010 Impact factor: 3.622
Authors: Andrea Romano; L F Calabria; F Tavanti; G Minniti; M C Rossi-Espagnet; V Coppola; S Pugliese; D Guida; G Francione; C Colonnese; L M Fantozzi; A Bozzao Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Shibu Pillai; Ash Singhal; Angela T Byrne; Chris Dunham; D Douglas Cochrane; Paul Steinbok Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2011-07-06 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Joost J C Verhoeff; Olaf van Tellingen; An Claes; Lukas J A Stalpers; Myra E van Linde; Dirk J Richel; William P J Leenders; Wouter R van Furth Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2009-12-16 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Inas S Khayal; Forrest W Crawford; Suja Saraswathy; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Soonmee Cha; Tracy R McKnight; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 4.813