BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive diagnosis of brain lesions is important for the correct choice of treatment. Our aims were to investigate whether 1) proton MR spectroscopic imaging ((1)H-MRSI) can aid in differentiating between tumors and nonneoplastic brain lesions, and 2) perfusion MR imaging can improve the classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 69 adults with untreated primary brain lesions (brain tumors, n = 36; benign lesions, n = 10; stroke, n = 4; demyelination, n = 10; and stable lesions not confirmed on pathologic examination, n = 9). MR imaging and (1)H-MRSI were performed at 1.5T before biopsy or treatment. Concentrations of N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine (Cr), and choline (Cho) in the lesion were expressed as metabolite ratios and were normalized to the contralateral hemisphere. Dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging was performed in a subset of patients (n = 32); relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was evaluated. Discriminant function analysis was used to identify variables that can predict inclusion in the neoplastic or nonneoplastic lesion groups. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory capability of (1)H-MRSI and perfusion MR imaging. RESULTS: The discriminant function analysis correctly classified 84.2% of original grouped cases (P < .0001), on the basis of NAA/Cho, Cho(norm), NAA(norm), and NAA/Cr ratios. MRSI and perfusion MR imaging had similar discriminatory capabilities in differentiating tumors from nonneoplastic lesions. With cutoff points of NAA/Cho < or =0.61 and rCBV > or =1.50 (corresponding to diagnosis of the tumors), a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 91.7% in differentiating tumors from nonneoplastic lesions were achieved. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a promising role for (1)H-MRSI and perfusion MR imaging in the distinction between brain tumors and nonneoplastic lesions in adults.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Noninvasive diagnosis of brain lesions is important for the correct choice of treatment. Our aims were to investigate whether 1) proton MR spectroscopic imaging ((1)H-MRSI) can aid in differentiating between tumors and nonneoplastic brain lesions, and 2) perfusion MR imaging can improve the classification. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined 69 adults with untreated primary brain lesions (brain tumors, n = 36; benign lesions, n = 10; stroke, n = 4; demyelination, n = 10; and stable lesions not confirmed on pathologic examination, n = 9). MR imaging and (1)H-MRSI were performed at 1.5T before biopsy or treatment. Concentrations of N-acetylaspartate (NAA), creatine (Cr), and choline (Cho) in the lesion were expressed as metabolite ratios and were normalized to the contralateral hemisphere. Dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging was performed in a subset of patients (n = 32); relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) was evaluated. Discriminant function analysis was used to identify variables that can predict inclusion in the neoplastic or nonneoplastic lesion groups. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to compare the discriminatory capability of (1)H-MRSI and perfusion MR imaging. RESULTS: The discriminant function analysis correctly classified 84.2% of original grouped cases (P < .0001), on the basis of NAA/Cho, Cho(norm), NAA(norm), and NAA/Cr ratios. MRSI and perfusion MR imaging had similar discriminatory capabilities in differentiating tumors from nonneoplastic lesions. With cutoff points of NAA/Cho < or =0.61 and rCBV > or =1.50 (corresponding to diagnosis of the tumors), a sensitivity of 72.2% and specificity of 91.7% in differentiating tumors from nonneoplastic lesions were achieved. CONCLUSION: These results suggest a promising role for (1)H-MRSI and perfusion MR imaging in the distinction between brain tumors and nonneoplastic lesions in adults.
Authors: Roula Hourani; Alena Horská; Sait Albayram; Larry J Brant; Elias Melhem; Kenneth J Cohen; Peter C Burger; John D Weingart; Benjamin Carson; Moody D Wharam; Peter B Barker Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: S Cha; S Pierce; E A Knopp; G Johnson; C Yang; A Ton; A W Litt; D Zagzag Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2001 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Butzen; 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 Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Meng Law; Micole Hamburger; Glyn Johnson; Matilde Inglese; Ana Londono; John Golfinos; David Zagzag; Edmond A Knopp Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-12
Authors: Soonmee Cha; Tarik Tihan; Forrest Crawford; Nancy J Fischbein; Susan Chang; Andrew Bollen; Sarah J Nelson; Michael Prados; Mitchel S Berger; William P Dillon Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Riyadh N Al-Okaili; Jaroslaw Krejza; John H Woo; Ronald L Wolf; Donald M O'Rourke; Kevin D Judy; Harish Poptani; Elias R Melhem Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Rajan Jain; Shehanaz Ellika; Norman L Lehman; Lisa Scarpace; Lonni R Schultz; Jack P Rock; Mark Rosenblum; Tom Mikkelsen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 4.130