H S Kim1, C H Suh, N Kim, C-G Choi, S J Kim. 1. From the Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intravoxel incoherent motion can simultaneously measure diffusion and perfusion characteristics. Our aim was to determine whether the perfusion and diffusion parameters derived from intravoxel incoherent motion could act as imaging biomarkers for distinguishing recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with pathologically confirmed recurrent tumor (n = 31) or treatment effect (n = 20) were assessed by means of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. The histogram cutoffs of the 90th percentiles for perfusion and normalized CBV and the 10th percentiles for diffusion and ADC were calculated and correlated with the final pathology results. A leave-one-out cross-validation was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of our classifiers. RESULTS: The mean 90th percentile for perfusion was significantly higher in the recurrent tumor group (0.084 ± 0.020) than in the treatment effect group (0.040 ± 0.010) (P < .001). The 90th percentile for perfusion provided a smaller number of patients within an overlap zone in which misclassifications can occur, compared with the 90th percentile for normalized CBV. The mean 10th percentile for diffusion was significantly lower in the recurrent tumor group than in the treatment effect group (P = .006). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed the 90th percentile for perfusion to be a significant predictor for differentiation, with a sensitivity of 87.1% and a specificity of 95.0%. There was a significant positive correlation between the 90th percentiles for perfusion and normalized CBV (r = 0.674; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters can be used as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Intravoxel incoherent motion can simultaneously measure diffusion and perfusion characteristics. Our aim was to determine whether the perfusion and diffusion parameters derived from intravoxel incoherent motion could act as imaging biomarkers for distinguishing recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one patients with pathologically confirmed recurrent tumor (n = 31) or treatment effect (n = 20) were assessed by means of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. The histogram cutoffs of the 90th percentiles for perfusion and normalized CBV and the 10th percentiles for diffusion and ADC were calculated and correlated with the final pathology results. A leave-one-out cross-validation was used to evaluate the diagnostic performance of our classifiers. RESULTS: The mean 90th percentile for perfusion was significantly higher in the recurrent tumor group (0.084 ± 0.020) than in the treatment effect group (0.040 ± 0.010) (P < .001). The 90th percentile for perfusion provided a smaller number of patients within an overlap zone in which misclassifications can occur, compared with the 90th percentile for normalized CBV. The mean 10th percentile for diffusion was significantly lower in the recurrent tumor group than in the treatment effect group (P = .006). Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses showed the 90th percentile for perfusion to be a significant predictor for differentiation, with a sensitivity of 87.1% and a specificity of 95.0%. There was a significant positive correlation between the 90th percentiles for perfusion and normalized CBV (r = 0.674; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters can be used as a noninvasive imaging biomarker for differentiating recurrent tumor from treatment effect in patients with glioblastoma.
Authors: R Jain; J Gutierrez; J Narang; L Scarpace; L R Schultz; N Lemke; S C Patel; T Mikkelsen; J P Rock Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-11-11 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ramon F Barajas; Jamie S Chang; Mark R Segal; Andrew T Parsa; Michael W McDermott; Mitchel S Berger; Soonmee Cha Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Martin R Prince; Hong Lei Zhang; Giles H Roditi; Tim Leiner; Walter Kucharczyk Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R Jain; J Narang; L Schultz; L Scarpace; S Saksena; S Brown; J P Rock; M Rosenblum; J Gutierrez; T Mikkelsen Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Hadrien A Dyvorne; Nicola Galea; Thomas Nevers; M Isabel Fiel; David Carpenter; Edmund Wong; Matthew Orton; Andre de Oliveira; Thorsten Feiweier; Marie-Louise Vachon; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Lukas Filli; Moritz C Wurnig; Roger Luechinger; Christian Eberhardt; Roman Guggenberger; Andreas Boss Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sina Burth; Philipp Kickingereder; Oliver Eidel; Diana Tichy; David Bonekamp; Lukas Weberling; Antje Wick; Sarah Löw; Anne Hertenstein; Martha Nowosielski; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Wolfgang Wick; Martin Bendszus; Alexander Radbruch Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Jay S Detsky; Julia Keith; John Conklin; Sean Symons; Sten Myrehaug; Arjun Sahgal; Chinthaka C Heyn; Hany Soliman Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2017-07-03 Impact factor: 4.130