OBJECT: The aim of this study was to estimate the accuracy of routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies in the classification of brain tumors in terms of both cell type and grade of malignancy. METHODS: The authors retrospectively assessed the correlation between neuroimaging classifications and histopathological diagnoses by using multicenter database records from 393 patients with brain tumors. An ontology was devised to establish diagnostic agreement. Each tumor category was compared with the corresponding histopathological diagnoses by dichotomization. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs, respectively), and the Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each were calculated. In routine reporting of MR imaging examinations, tumor types and grades were classified with a high specificity (85.2-100%); sensitivity varied, depending on the tumor type and grade, alone or in combination. The recognition of broad diagnostic categories (neuroepithelial or meningeal lesions) was highly sensitive, whereas when both detailed type and grade were considered, sensitivity diverged, being highest in low-grade meningioma (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 96.2-100.0%) and lowest in high-grade meningioma (sensitivity 0.0%, 95% CI 0.0-65.8%) and low-grade oligodendroglioma (sensitivity 15%, 95% CI 5.2-36.0%). In neuroepithelial tumors, sensitivity was inversely related to the precision in reporting of grade and cellular origin; "glioma" was a frequent neuroimaging classification associated with higher sensitivity in the corresponding category. The PPVs varied among categories, in general being greater than their prevalence in this dataset. The NPV was high in all categories (69.8-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The PPVs and NPVs provided in this study may be used as estimates of posttest probabilities of diagnostic accuracy using MR imaging. This study targets the need for noninvasively increasing sensitivity in categorizing most brain tumor types while retaining high specificity, especially in the differentiation of high- and low-grade glial tumor classes.
OBJECT: The aim of this study was to estimate the accuracy of routine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging studies in the classification of brain tumors in terms of both cell type and grade of malignancy. METHODS: The authors retrospectively assessed the correlation between neuroimaging classifications and histopathological diagnoses by using multicenter database records from 393 patients with brain tumors. An ontology was devised to establish diagnostic agreement. Each tumor category was compared with the corresponding histopathological diagnoses by dichotomization. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPVs and NPVs, respectively), and the Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each were calculated. In routine reporting of MR imaging examinations, tumor types and grades were classified with a high specificity (85.2-100%); sensitivity varied, depending on the tumor type and grade, alone or in combination. The recognition of broad diagnostic categories (neuroepithelial or meningeal lesions) was highly sensitive, whereas when both detailed type and grade were considered, sensitivity diverged, being highest in low-grade meningioma (sensitivity 100%, 95% CI 96.2-100.0%) and lowest in high-grade meningioma (sensitivity 0.0%, 95% CI 0.0-65.8%) and low-grade oligodendroglioma (sensitivity 15%, 95% CI 5.2-36.0%). In neuroepithelial tumors, sensitivity was inversely related to the precision in reporting of grade and cellular origin; "glioma" was a frequent neuroimaging classification associated with higher sensitivity in the corresponding category. The PPVs varied among categories, in general being greater than their prevalence in this dataset. The NPV was high in all categories (69.8-100%). CONCLUSIONS: The PPVs and NPVs provided in this study may be used as estimates of posttest probabilities of diagnostic accuracy using MR imaging. This study targets the need for noninvasively increasing sensitivity in categorizing most brain tumor types while retaining high specificity, especially in the differentiation of high- and low-grade glial tumor classes.
Authors: Ovidiu C Andronesi; Konstantinos D Blekas; Dionyssios Mintzopoulos; Loukas Astrakas; Peter M Black; A Aria Tzika Journal: Int J Oncol Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 5.650
Authors: R Guillevin; C Menuel; S Taillibert; L Capelle; R Costalat; L Abud; C Habas; G De Marco; K Hoang-Xuan; J Chiras; J-N Vallée Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Juan M García-Gómez; Jan Luts; Margarida Julià-Sapé; Patrick Krooshof; Salvador Tortajada; Javier Vicente Robledo; Willem Melssen; Elies Fuster-García; Iván Olier; Geert Postma; Daniel Monleón; Angel Moreno-Torres; Jesús Pujol; Ana-Paula Candiota; M Carmen Martínez-Bisbal; Johan Suykens; Lutgarde Buydens; Bernardo Celda; Sabine Van Huffel; Carles Arús; Montserrat Robles Journal: MAGMA Date: 2008-11-07 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Sandra Ortega-Martorell; Héctor Ruiz; Alfredo Vellido; Iván Olier; Enrique Romero; Margarida Julià-Sapé; José D Martín; Ian H Jarman; Carles Arús; Paulo J G Lisboa Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-23 Impact factor: 3.240