PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and choline levels from proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) in newly diagnosed Grade II and IV gliomas within distinct anatomic regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients with Grade II and 28 patients with Grade IV glioma were scanned on a 1.5T system with 3D MRSI and DWI. Region level analysis included Spearman rank correlation between median normalized ADC and choline for each patient per grade within each distinct abnormal anatomical region. Voxel level analysis calculated a Spearman rank correlation per region, per patient. RESULTS: Grade II lesions showed no evidence of a correlation between normalized ADC and choline using either the region or voxel level analysis. Region level analysis of Grade IV lesions did not appear to correlate in the contrast enhancement or necrotic core, but did suggest a significant negative correlation in the more heterogeneous nonenhancing and combined regions. CONCLUSION: There appears to be differences in the relationship between ADC and choline levels in Grade II and Grade IV gliomas. Correlation within these regions in Grade IV lesions was strongest when all regions were included, suggesting heterogeneity may be driving the relationship. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and choline levels from proton magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging (MRSI) in newly diagnosed Grade II and IV gliomas within distinct anatomic regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 37 patients with Grade II and 28 patients with Grade IV glioma were scanned on a 1.5T system with 3D MRSI and DWI. Region level analysis included Spearman rank correlation between median normalized ADC and choline for each patient per grade within each distinct abnormal anatomical region. Voxel level analysis calculated a Spearman rank correlation per region, per patient. RESULTS: Grade II lesions showed no evidence of a correlation between normalized ADC and choline using either the region or voxel level analysis. Region level analysis of Grade IV lesions did not appear to correlate in the contrast enhancement or necrotic core, but did suggest a significant negative correlation in the more heterogeneous nonenhancing and combined regions. CONCLUSION: There appears to be differences in the relationship between ADC and choline levels in Grade II and Grade IV gliomas. Correlation within these regions in Grade IV lesions was strongest when all regions were included, suggesting heterogeneity may be driving the relationship. (c) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: A I García-Pérez; E A López-Beltrán; P Klüner; J Luque; P Ballesteros; S Cerdán Journal: Arch Biochem Biophys Date: 1999-02-15 Impact factor: 4.013
Authors: Jun Chen; Jun Xia; Yi-cheng Zhou; Li-ming Xia; Wen-zhen Zhu; Ming-li Zou; Ding-yi Feng; Cheng-yuan Wang Journal: Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi Date: 2005-05
Authors: K M Gauvain; R C McKinstry; P Mukherjee; A Perry; J J Neil; B A Kaufman; R J Hayashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bradford A Moffat; Thomas L Chenevert; Theodore S Lawrence; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Qian Dong; Christina Tsien; Suresh Mukherji; Douglas J Quint; Stephen S Gebarski; Patricia L Robertson; Larry R Junck; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2005-04-01 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: J A Calvar; F J Meli; C Romero; M L Calcagno; P Yánez; A R Martinez; H Lambre; A L Taratuto; G Sevlever Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2005-05 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Sebastian Herminghaus; Ulrich Pilatus; Walter Möller-Hartmann; Peter Raab; Heinrich Lanfermann; Wolfgang Schlote; Friedhelm E Zanella Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Radhika Srinivasan; Joanna J Phillips; Scott R Vandenberg; Mei-Yin C Polley; Gabriela Bourne; Alvin Au; Andrea Pirzkall; Soonmee Cha; Susan M Chang; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Patricia Coutinho de Souza; Krithika Balasubramanian; Charity Njoku; Natalyia Smith; David L Gillespie; Andrea Schwager; Osama Abdullah; Jerry W Ritchey; Kar-Ming Fung; Debra Saunders; Randy L Jensen; Rheal A Towner Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-04-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dita Wagnerova; Vit Herynek; Alberto Malucelli; Monika Dezortova; Josef Vymazal; Dusan Urgosik; Martin Syrucek; Filip Jiru; Antonin Skoch; Robert Bartos; Martin Sames; Milan Hajek Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wei Bian; Inas S Khayal; Janine M Lupo; Colleen McGue; Scott Vandenberg; Kathleen R Lamborn; Susan M Chang; Soonmee Cha; Sarah J Nelson Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Susan M Chang; Sarah Nelson; Scott Vandenberg; Soonmee Cha; Michael Prados; Nicholas Butowski; Michael McDermott; Andrew T Parsa; Manish Aghi; Jennifer Clarke; Mitchel Berger Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 4.130