X Z Chen1, X M Yin, L Ai, Q Chen, S W Li, J P Dai. 1. Department of Neuroimaging, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, P R China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The differentiation between cerebral GBM and solitary MET is clinically important and may be radiologically challenging. Our hypothesis is that routine MR imaging with qualitative and quantitative analysis is helpful for this differentiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five GBM and 21 solitary metastases were retrospectively identified, with their preoperative routine MR imaging analyzed. According to the comparison of the area of peritumoral T2 prolongation with that of the lesion, the tumors were classified into grade I (prolongation area ≤ tumor area) and grade II (prolongation area > tumor area). The signal intensities of peritumoral T2 prolongation were measured on T2WI and normalized to the values of the contralateral normal regions by calculating the ratios. The ratio (nSI) of both types of tumors was compared in grade I, grade II, and in tumors without grading. The best cutoff values to optimize the sensitivity and specificity were determined for optimal differentiation. RESULTS: The nSI of GBM was significantly higher than that of MET without T2 prolongation grading (P < .001), resulting in AUC = 0.725. The difference was significant (P = .014) in grade I tumors (GBM, 38; MET, 9), with AUC = 0.741, and in grade II tumors (GBM, 7; MET, 12), with AUC = 0.869 (P = .017). Both types of tumors showed a different propensity in T2 prolongation grading (χ(2) = 12.079, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined with qualitative and quantitative analysis of peritumoral T2 prolongation, routine MR imaging can help in the differentiation between brain GBM and solitary MET.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The differentiation between cerebral GBM and solitary MET is clinically important and may be radiologically challenging. Our hypothesis is that routine MR imaging with qualitative and quantitative analysis is helpful for this differentiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five GBM and 21 solitary metastases were retrospectively identified, with their preoperative routine MR imaging analyzed. According to the comparison of the area of peritumoral T2 prolongation with that of the lesion, the tumors were classified into grade I (prolongation area ≤ tumor area) and grade II (prolongation area > tumor area). The signal intensities of peritumoral T2 prolongation were measured on T2WI and normalized to the values of the contralateral normal regions by calculating the ratios. The ratio (nSI) of both types of tumors was compared in grade I, grade II, and in tumors without grading. The best cutoff values to optimize the sensitivity and specificity were determined for optimal differentiation. RESULTS: The nSI of GBM was significantly higher than that of MET without T2 prolongation grading (P < .001), resulting in AUC = 0.725. The difference was significant (P = .014) in grade I tumors (GBM, 38; MET, 9), with AUC = 0.741, and in grade II tumors (GBM, 7; MET, 12), with AUC = 0.869 (P = .017). Both types of tumors showed a different propensity in T2 prolongation grading (χ(2) = 12.079, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: Combined with qualitative and quantitative analysis of peritumoral T2 prolongation, routine MR imaging can help in the differentiation between brain GBM and solitary MET.
Authors: Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; Glyn Johnson; Stephan G Wetzel; Andrew W Litt; David Zagzag Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrés Server; Tone E Døli Orheim; Bjørn A Graff; Roger Josefsen; Theresa Kumar; Per H Nakstad Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2010-07-13 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Joonmi Oh; Soonmee Cha; Ashley H Aiken; Eric T Han; Jason C Crane; Jeffrey A Stainsby; Graham A Wright; William P Dillon; Sarah J Nelson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Nelson de Azambuja Pereira-Filho; Fabiano Pasqualotto Soares; Ivan de Mello Chemale; Ligia Maria Barbosa Coutinho Journal: Arq Neuropsiquiatr Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 1.420
Authors: S Wang; S J Kim; H Poptani; J H Woo; S Mohan; R Jin; M R Voluck; D M O'Rourke; R L Wolf; E R Melhem; S Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-02-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Danielle N Renner; Courtney S Malo; Fang Jin; Ian F Parney; Kevin D Pavelko; Aaron J Johnson Journal: Neurotherapeutics Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 7.620
Authors: Danielle N Renner; Fang Jin; Adam J Litterman; Alexis J Balgeman; Lisa M Hanson; Jeffrey D Gamez; Michael Chae; Brett L Carlson; Jann N Sarkaria; Ian F Parney; John R Ohlfest; Istvan Pirko; Kevin D Pavelko; Aaron J Johnson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-05-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Rasheed Zakaria; Kumar Das; Mark Radon; Maneesh Bhojak; Philip R Rudland; Vanessa Sluming; Michael D Jenkinson Journal: BMC Med Imaging Date: 2014-08-03 Impact factor: 1.930