RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of normalized versus non-normalized metabolite ratios to differentiate recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in previously treated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with previous diagnosis of primary intracranial neoplasm confirmed with biopsy/resection, previously treated with radiation therapy (range, 54-70 Gy) with or without chemotherapy and new contrast enhancing lesion on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging at the site of the primary neoplasm participated in this retrospective study. After MRS, clinical, radiological, and histopathology data were used to classify new contrast-enhancing lesions as either recurrent neoplasm or radiation injury. Volume of interest included both the lesion and normal-appearing brain on the contralateral side. Non-normalized metabolic ratios were calculated from choline (Cho), creatine (Cr), and N-acetylaspartate (NAA) spectroscopic values obtained within the contrast-enhancing lesion: Cho/Cr, NAA/Cr, and Cho/NAA. Normalized ratios were calculated using the metabolic values from the contralateral normal side: Cho/normal creatinine (nCr), Cho/normal N-acetylaspartate (nNAA), Cho/normal choline, NAA/nNAA, NAA/nCr, and Cr/nCr. Results were correlated with the final diagnosis by Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis. RESULTS: Two of three non-normalized ratios, Cho/NAA (sensitivity 86%, specificity 90%) and NAA/Cr (sensitivity 93%, specificity 70%) significantly associated with tumor recurrence even after correcting for multiple comparisons. Of the six normalized ratios, only Cho/nNAA significantly correlated with tumor recurrence (sensitivity 73%, specificity 40%), but did not remain significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Cho/NAA and NAA/Cr were the two ratios with the best discriminating ability and both had better discriminating ability than their corresponding normalized ratios (Area under the curve = 0.92 versus 0.77, AUC= 0.85 vs. 0.66), respectively.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of normalized versus non-normalized metabolite ratios to differentiate recurrent brain tumor from radiation injury using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) in previously treated patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five patients with previous diagnosis of primary intracranial neoplasm confirmed with biopsy/resection, previously treated with radiation therapy (range, 54-70 Gy) with or without chemotherapy and new contrast enhancing lesion on a 1.5 T magnetic resonance imaging at the site of the primary neoplasm participated in this retrospective study. After MRS, clinical, radiological, and histopathology data were used to classify new contrast-enhancing lesions as either recurrent neoplasm or radiation injury. Volume of interest included both the lesion and normal-appearing brain on the contralateral side. Non-normalized metabolic ratios were calculated from choline (Cho), creatine (Cr), and N-acetylaspartate (NAA) spectroscopic values obtained within the contrast-enhancing lesion: Cho/Cr, NAA/Cr, and Cho/NAA. Normalized ratios were calculated using the metabolic values from the contralateral normal side: Cho/normal creatinine (nCr), Cho/normal N-acetylaspartate (nNAA), Cho/normal choline, NAA/nNAA, NAA/nCr, and Cr/nCr. Results were correlated with the final diagnosis by Wilcoxon rank-sum analysis. RESULTS: Two of three non-normalized ratios, Cho/NAA (sensitivity 86%, specificity 90%) and NAA/Cr (sensitivity 93%, specificity 70%) significantly associated with tumor recurrence even after correcting for multiple comparisons. Of the six normalized ratios, only Cho/nNAA significantly correlated with tumor recurrence (sensitivity 73%, specificity 40%), but did not remain significant after correcting for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION:Cho/NAA and NAA/Cr were the two ratios with the best discriminating ability and both had better discriminating ability than their corresponding normalized ratios (Area under the curve = 0.92 versus 0.77, AUC= 0.85 vs. 0.66), respectively.
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: M Ismail; V Hill; V Statsevych; R Huang; P Prasanna; R Correa; G Singh; K Bera; N Beig; R Thawani; A Madabhushi; M Aahluwalia; P Tiwari Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kiaran P McGee; Ken-Pin Hwang; Daniel C Sullivan; John Kurhanewicz; Yanle Hu; Jihong Wang; Wen Li; Josef Debbins; Eric Paulson; Jeffrey R Olsen; Chia-Ho Hua; Lizette Warner; Daniel Ma; Eduardo Moros; Neelam Tyagi; Caroline Chung Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-05-20 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Andrew A Maudsley; Ovidiu C Andronesi; Peter B Barker; Alberto Bizzi; Wolfgang Bogner; Anke Henning; Sarah J Nelson; Stefan Posse; Dikoma C Shungu; Brian J Soher Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Catherine Coolens; Matt N Gwilliam; Paula Alcaide-Leon; Isabella Maria de Freitas Faria; Fabio Ynoe de Moraes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 6.639