M L White1, Y Zhang, F Yu, S A Jaffar Kazmi. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, 68198, USA. matthewwhite@unmc.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FA correlation to glioma tumor grade has been mixed if not disappointing. There are several potential underlying fundamental issues that have contributed to these results. In an attempt to overcome these past shortfalls, we evaluated characteristics of FA of the solid tissue components of gliomas, including whether high-grade gliomas have a greater variation of FA than low-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with gliomas (9 grade II, 8 grade III, and 17 grade IV) underwent diffusion tensor imaging at 3T. Mean FA, maximum FA, and minimum FA values were measured within the solid tissue components of the tumors. The variations of FA were evaluated by determining the range of FA values and the maximum SDs of FA. The variations of FA values among different tumor grades were compared statistically. We also correlated FA variations with minimum FA and maximum FA. RESULTS: The maximum FA, FA range, and maximum SD for grade II tumors were significantly lower than those for grade III and IV tumors (P < .0001 ∼ P = .0164). A very good correlation of maximum FA to FA range (r = 0.931) and maximum SD (r = 0.889) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The FA range and maximum SD appear useful for differentiating low- and high-grade gliomas. This analysis added value to the findings on conventional MR imaging. In addition, focal maximum FA is a key factor contributing to the larger FA variation within high-grade gliomas.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: FA correlation to glioma tumor grade has been mixed if not disappointing. There are several potential underlying fundamental issues that have contributed to these results. In an attempt to overcome these past shortfalls, we evaluated characteristics of FA of the solid tissue components of gliomas, including whether high-grade gliomas have a greater variation of FA than low-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with gliomas (9 grade II, 8 grade III, and 17 grade IV) underwent diffusion tensor imaging at 3T. Mean FA, maximum FA, and minimum FA values were measured within the solid tissue components of the tumors. The variations of FA were evaluated by determining the range of FA values and the maximum SDs of FA. The variations of FA values among different tumor grades were compared statistically. We also correlated FA variations with minimum FA and maximum FA. RESULTS: The maximum FA, FA range, and maximum SD for grade II tumors were significantly lower than those for grade III and IV tumors (P < .0001 ∼ P = .0164). A very good correlation of maximum FA to FA range (r = 0.931) and maximum SD (r = 0.889) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The FA range and maximum SD appear useful for differentiating low- and high-grade gliomas. This analysis added value to the findings on conventional MR imaging. In addition, focal maximum FA is a key factor contributing to the larger FA variation within high-grade gliomas.
Authors: P E Sijens; M A A M Heesters; R H Enting; W T A van der Graaf; J H Potze; R Irwan; L C Meiners; M Oudkerk Journal: Cancer Invest Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Brian P Witwer; Roham Moftakhar; Khader M Hasan; Praveen Deshmukh; Victor Haughton; Aaron Field; Konstantinos Arfanakis; Jane Noyes; Chad H Moritz; M Elizabeth Meyerand; Howard A Rowley; Andrew L Alexander; Behnam Badie Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Andreas Stadlbauer; Oliver Ganslandt; Rolf Buslei; Thilo Hammen; Stephan Gruber; Ewald Moser; Michael Buchfelder; Erich Salomonowitz; Christopher Nimsky Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: E Goebell; J Fiehler; X-Q Ding; S Paustenbach; S Nietz; O Heese; T Kucinski; C Hagel; M Westphal; H Zeumer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: U C Wieshmann; M R Symms; G J Parker; C A Clark; L Lemieux; G J Barker; S D Shorvon Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: Rory J Piper; Shadia Mikhael; Joanna M Wardlaw; David H Laidlaw; Ian R Whittle; Mark E Bastin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Sarah Jost Fouke; Tammie Benzinger; Daniel Gibson; Timothy C Ryken; Steven N Kalkanis; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-03 Impact factor: 4.130