INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the differentiated effectiveness of MR diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury. METHODS: Conventional MRI and DTI examination were performed using Siemens 3.0 T MR System for patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions at the site of treated tumor with postoperative radiotherapy. The region of interest was manually drawn on ADC and FA maps at contrast-enhancing lesion area, peri-lesion edema, and the contra-lateral normal white matter. Then ADC and FA values were measured and, the ADC ratio and FA ratio were calculated. Twenty patients with recurrent tumor and 15 with radiation injury were confirmed by histopathologic examination (23 patients) and clinical imaging follow-up (12 patients), respectively. The mean ADC ratio and FA ratio were compared between the two lesion types. RESULTS: The mean ADC ratio at contrast-enhancing lesion area was significantly lower in patients with recurrent tumor (1.34 ± 0.15) compared to that with radiation injury (1.62 ± 0.17; P < 0.01). The mean FA ratio at contrast-enhancing lesion area was significantly higher in patients with recurrent tumor (0.45 ± 0.03) compared to that with radiation injury (0.32 ± 0.03; P < 0.01). Neither mean ADC ratio nor FA ratio in edema areas had statistical difference between the two groups. A recurrent tumor was suggested when either ADC ratio <1.65 or/and FA ratio >0.36 at contrast-enhancing lesion area according to the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. Three patients with recurrent tumor and two with radiation injury were misclassified. CONCLUSION: DTI is a valuable method to distinguish postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury.
INTRODUCTION: This study aims to evaluate the differentiated effectiveness of MR diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury. METHODS: Conventional MRI and DTI examination were performed using Siemens 3.0 T MR System for patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions at the site of treated tumor with postoperative radiotherapy. The region of interest was manually drawn on ADC and FA maps at contrast-enhancing lesion area, peri-lesion edema, and the contra-lateral normal white matter. Then ADC and FA values were measured and, the ADC ratio and FA ratio were calculated. Twenty patients with recurrent tumor and 15 with radiation injury were confirmed by histopathologic examination (23 patients) and clinical imaging follow-up (12 patients), respectively. The mean ADC ratio and FA ratio were compared between the two lesion types. RESULTS: The mean ADC ratio at contrast-enhancing lesion area was significantly lower in patients with recurrent tumor (1.34 ± 0.15) compared to that with radiation injury (1.62 ± 0.17; P < 0.01). The mean FA ratio at contrast-enhancing lesion area was significantly higher in patients with recurrent tumor (0.45 ± 0.03) compared to that with radiation injury (0.32 ± 0.03; P < 0.01). Neither mean ADC ratio nor FA ratio in edema areas had statistical difference between the two groups. A recurrent tumor was suggested when either ADC ratio <1.65 or/and FA ratio >0.36 at contrast-enhancing lesion area according to the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. Three patients with recurrent tumor and two with radiation injury were misclassified. CONCLUSION: DTI is a valuable method to distinguish postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury.
Authors: Mark E Mullins; Glenn D Barest; Pamela W Schaefer; Fred H Hochberg; R Gilberto Gonzalez; Michael H Lev Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Christina Tsien; Craig J Galbán; Thomas L Chenevert; Timothy D Johnson; Daniel A Hamstra; Pia C Sundgren; Larry Junck; Charles R Meyer; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Theodore Lawrence; Brian D Ross Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Rajan Jain; Lisa M Scarpace; Shehanaz Ellika; Roy Torcuator; Lonni R Schultz; David Hearshen; Tom Mikkelsen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: William R Masch; Page I Wang; Thomas L Chenevert; Larry Junck; Christina Tsien; Jason A Heth; Pia C Sundgren Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Robert H Press; Jim Zhong; Saumya S Gurbani; Brent D Weinberg; Bree R Eaton; Hyunsuk Shim; Hui-Kuo G Shu Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Saramati Narasimhan; Haley B Johnson; Tanner M Nickles; Michael I Miga; Nitesh Rana; Albert Attia; Jared A Weis Journal: Med Phys Date: 2019-03-14 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: S Wang; M Martinez-Lage; Y Sakai; S Chawla; S G Kim; M Alonso-Basanta; R A Lustig; S Brem; S Mohan; R L Wolf; A Desai; H Poptani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-10-08 Impact factor: 3.825