INTRODUCTION: Accurate grading of cerebral glioma using conventional structural imaging techniques remains challenging due to the relatively poor sensitivity and specificity of these methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative sensitivity and specificity of structural magnetic resonance imaging and MR measurements of perfusion, diffusion, and whole-brain spectroscopic parameters for glioma grading. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with radiologically suspected untreated glioma were studied with T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and volumetric whole-brain MR spectroscopic imaging. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed using the relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), apparent diffusion coefficient, fractional anisotropy, and multiple spectroscopic parameters to determine optimum thresholds for tumor grading and to obtain the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for identifying high-grade gliomas. Logistic regression was performed to analyze all the parameters together. RESULTS: The rCBV individually classified glioma as low and high grade with a sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 88 %, respectively, based on a threshold value of 3.34. On combining all parameters under consideration, the classification was achieved with 2 % error and sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 96 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: Individually, CBV measurement provides the greatest diagnostic performance for predicting glioma grade; however, the most accurate classification can be achieved by combining all of the imaging parameters.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate grading of cerebral glioma using conventional structural imaging techniques remains challenging due to the relatively poor sensitivity and specificity of these methods. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative sensitivity and specificity of structural magnetic resonance imaging and MR measurements of perfusion, diffusion, and whole-brain spectroscopic parameters for glioma grading. METHODS: Fifty-six patients with radiologically suspected untreated glioma were studied with T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging, diffusion tensor imaging, and volumetric whole-brain MR spectroscopic imaging. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed using the relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), apparent diffusion coefficient, fractional anisotropy, and multiple spectroscopic parameters to determine optimum thresholds for tumor grading and to obtain the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for identifying high-grade gliomas. Logistic regression was performed to analyze all the parameters together. RESULTS: The rCBV individually classified glioma as low and high grade with a sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 88 %, respectively, based on a threshold value of 3.34. On combining all parameters under consideration, the classification was achieved with 2 % error and sensitivity and specificity of 100 and 96 %, respectively. CONCLUSION: Individually, CBV measurement provides the greatest diagnostic performance for predicting glioma grade; however, the most accurate classification can be achieved by combining all of the imaging parameters.
Authors: James R Fink; Robert B Carr; Eiji Matsusue; Ramesh S Iyer; Jason K Rockhill; David R Haynor; Kenneth R Maravilla Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-10-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Eun Ja Lee; Karel terBrugge; David Mikulis; Dae Seob Choi; Jong Myon Bae; Seon Kyu Lee; Soon Young Moon Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kaisorn L Chaichana; Matthew J McGirt; Ashwini Niranjan; Alessandro Olivi; Peter C Burger; Alfredo Quinones-Hinojosa Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2009-02-12 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Elke Hattingen; Oliver Delic; Kea Franz; Ulrich Pilatus; Peter Raab; Heinrich Lanfermann; Rüdiger Gerlach Journal: Neurol Res Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 2.448
Authors: Mary A McLean; Amy Sun; Thomas E Bradstreet; Andrea K Schaeffer; Haiying Liu; Robert Iannone; Gary Herman; Radha A Railkar; Ilse Joubert; Jonathan H Gillard; Stephen J Price; John R Griffiths Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: N Andres Parra; Andrew A Maudsley; Rakesh K Gupta; Fazilat Ishkanian; Kris Huang; Gail R Walker; Kyle Padgett; Bhaswati Roy; Joseph Panoff; Arnold Markoe; Radka Stoyanova Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-07-24 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Monica Anselmi; Alessia Catalucci; Valentina Felli; Valentina Vellucci; Alessandra Di Sibio; Giovanni Luca Gravina; Mario Di Staso; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Neuroradiol J Date: 2017-01-01
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: Andrea Horváth; Gábor Perlaki; Arnold Tóth; Gergely Orsi; Szilvia Nagy; Tamás Dóczi; Zsolt Horváth; Péter Bogner Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2015-11-27 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: H Fudaba; T Shimomura; T Abe; H Matsuta; Y Momii; K Sugita; H Ooba; T Kamida; T Hikawa; M Fujiki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-07-03 Impact factor: 3.825