INTRODUCTION: MR-based differentiation between low- and high-grade gliomas is predominately based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images (CE-T1w). However, functional MR sequences as perfusion- and diffusion-weighted sequences can provide additional information on tumor grade. Here, we tested the potential of a recently developed similarity search based method that integrates information of CE-T1w and perfusion maps for non-invasive MR-based glioma grading. METHODS: We prospectively included 37 untreated glioma patients (23 grade I/II, 14 grade III gliomas), in whom 3T MRI with FLAIR, pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted, and perfusion sequences was performed. Cerebral blood volume, cerebral blood flow, and mean transit time maps as well as CE-T1w images were used as input for the similarity search. Data sets were preprocessed and converted to four-dimensional Gaussian Mixture Models that considered correlations between the different MR sequences. For each patient, a so-called tumor feature vector (= probability-based classifier) was defined and used for grading. Biopsy was used as gold standard, and similarity based grading was compared to grading solely based on CE-T1w. RESULTS: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of pure CE-T1w based glioma grading were 64.9%, 78.6%, and 56.5%, respectively. Similarity search based tumor grading allowed differentiation between low-grade (I or II) and high-grade (III) gliomas with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 83.8%, 78.6%, and 87.0%. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that integration of perfusion parameters and CE-T1w information in a semi-automatic similarity search based analysis improves the potential of MR-based glioma grading compared to CE-T1w data alone.
INTRODUCTION: MR-based differentiation between low- and high-grade gliomas is predominately based on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images (CE-T1w). However, functional MR sequences as perfusion- and diffusion-weighted sequences can provide additional information on tumor grade. Here, we tested the potential of a recently developed similarity search based method that integrates information of CE-T1w and perfusion maps for non-invasive MR-based glioma grading. METHODS: We prospectively included 37 untreated gliomapatients (23 grade I/II, 14 grade III gliomas), in whom 3T MRI with FLAIR, pre- and post-contrast T1-weighted, and perfusion sequences was performed. Cerebral blood volume, cerebral blood flow, and mean transit time maps as well as CE-T1w images were used as input for the similarity search. Data sets were preprocessed and converted to four-dimensional Gaussian Mixture Models that considered correlations between the different MR sequences. For each patient, a so-called tumor feature vector (= probability-based classifier) was defined and used for grading. Biopsy was used as gold standard, and similarity based grading was compared to grading solely based on CE-T1w. RESULTS: Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of pure CE-T1w based glioma grading were 64.9%, 78.6%, and 56.5%, respectively. Similarity search based tumor grading allowed differentiation between low-grade (I or II) and high-grade (III) gliomas with an accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 83.8%, 78.6%, and 87.0%. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that integration of perfusion parameters and CE-T1w information in a semi-automatic similarity search based analysis improves the potential of MR-based glioma grading compared to CE-T1w data alone.
Authors: Gabriele Pöpperl; Friedrich W Kreth; Jan H Mehrkens; Jochen Herms; Klaus Seelos; Walter Koch; Franz J Gildehaus; Hans A Kretzschmar; Jörg C Tonn; Klaus Tatsch Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2007-09-01 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: S J Lee; J H Kim; Y M Kim; G K Lee; E J Lee; I S Park; J M Jung; K H Kang; T Shin Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2001 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; T Hirai; T Okuda; Y Shigematsu; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Valeria Cuccarini; A Erbetta; M Farinotti; L Cuppini; F Ghielmetti; B Pollo; F Di Meco; M Grisoli; G Filippini; G Finocchiaro; M G Bruzzone; M Eoli Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Egesta Lopci; Marco Riva; Laura Olivari; Fabio Raneri; Riccardo Soffietti; Arnoldo Piccardo; Alberto Bizzi; Pierina Navarria; Anna Maria Ascolese; Roberta Rudà; Bethania Fernandes; Federico Pessina; Marco Grimaldi; Matteo Simonelli; Marco Rossi; Tommaso Alfieri; Paolo Andrea Zucali; Marta Scorsetti; Lorenzo Bello; Arturo Chiti Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2017-01-21 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Max-Ludwig Schäfer; Martin H Maurer; Michael Synowitz; Joost Wüstefeld; Tim Marnitz; Florian Streitparth; Edzard Wiener Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Fred H Hochberg; Nadia A Atai; David Gonda; Michael S Hughes; Brolin Mawejje; Leonora Balaj; Robert S Carter Journal: Expert Rev Mol Diagn Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.225