Lambros Tselikas1, Raphaëlle Souillard-Scemama1, Olivier Naggara1, Charles Mellerio1, Pascale Varlet1, Edouard Dezamis1, Julien Domont1, Frédéric Dhermain1, Bertrand Devaux1, Fabrice Chrétien1, Jean-François Meder1, Johan Pallud1, Catherine Oppenheim1. 1. Neuroimaging Department, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (L.T., R.S.-S., O.N., C.M., J.-F.M., C.O.); Neurosurgery Department, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (E.D., B.D., J.P.); Neuropathology Department, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (P.V., F.C.); INSERM U 894 Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (O.N., C.O.); Radiation Therapy and Physics Department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France (F.D.); Medical Oncology department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France (J.D.); Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France (O.N., P.V., F.C., J.-F.M., J.P., C.O.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Glioma follow-up is based on MRI parameters, which are correlated with survival. Although established criteria are used to evaluate tumor response, radiological markers may be confounded by differences in instrumentation including the magnetic field strength. We assessed whether MRIs obtained at 3 Tesla (T) and 1.5T provided similar information. METHODS: We retrospectively compared imaging features of 30 consecutive patients with WHO grades II and III gliomas who underwent MRI at 1.5T and 3T within a month of each other, without any clinical changes during the same period. We compared lesion volumes on fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR), ratio of cerebral blood volume (rCBV) on perfusion-weighted imaging, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on FLAIR, and on post-gadolinium 3D T1-weighted sequences between 1.5T and 3T using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Concordance between observers within and between modalities was evaluated using weighted-kappa coefficient (wκ). RESULTS: The mean ± SD delay between modalities (1.5T and 3T MRI) was 8.6 ± 5.6 days. Interobserver/intraobserver concordance for lesion volume was almost perfect for 1.5T (ICC = 0.96/0.97) and 3T (ICC = 0.99/0.98). Agreement between observers for contrast enhancement was excellent at 1.5T (wκ = 0.92) and 3T (wκ = 0.92). The tumor CNR was significantly higher for FLAIR at 1.5T (P < .001), but it was higher at 3T (P = .012) for contrast enhancement. Correlations between modalities for lesion volume (ICC = 0.97) and for rCBV values (ICC = 0.92) were almost perfect. CONCLUSIONS: In the follow-up of WHO grades II and III gliomas, 1.5T and 3T provide similar MRI features, suggesting that monitoring could be performed on either a 1.5 or a 3T MR magnet.
BACKGROUND:Glioma follow-up is based on MRI parameters, which are correlated with survival. Although established criteria are used to evaluate tumor response, radiological markers may be confounded by differences in instrumentation including the magnetic field strength. We assessed whether MRIs obtained at 3 Tesla (T) and 1.5T provided similar information. METHODS: We retrospectively compared imaging features of 30 consecutive patients with WHO grades II and III gliomas who underwent MRI at 1.5T and 3T within a month of each other, without any clinical changes during the same period. We compared lesion volumes on fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR), ratio of cerebral blood volume (rCBV) on perfusion-weighted imaging, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on FLAIR, and on post-gadolinium 3D T1-weighted sequences between 1.5T and 3T using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Concordance between observers within and between modalities was evaluated using weighted-kappa coefficient (wκ). RESULTS: The mean ± SD delay between modalities (1.5T and 3T MRI) was 8.6 ± 5.6 days. Interobserver/intraobserver concordance for lesion volume was almost perfect for 1.5T (ICC = 0.96/0.97) and 3T (ICC = 0.99/0.98). Agreement between observers for contrast enhancement was excellent at 1.5T (wκ = 0.92) and 3T (wκ = 0.92). The tumor CNR was significantly higher for FLAIR at 1.5T (P < .001), but it was higher at 3T (P = .012) for contrast enhancement. Correlations between modalities for lesion volume (ICC = 0.97) and for rCBV values (ICC = 0.92) were almost perfect. CONCLUSIONS: In the follow-up of WHO grades II and III gliomas, 1.5T and 3T provide similar MRI features, suggesting that monitoring could be performed on either a 1.5 or a 3T MR magnet.
Authors: Patrick Y Wen; David R Macdonald; David A Reardon; Timothy F Cloughesy; A Gregory Sorensen; Evanthia Galanis; John Degroot; Wolfgang Wick; Mark R Gilbert; Andrew B Lassman; Christina Tsien; Tom Mikkelsen; Eric T Wong; Marc C Chamberlain; Roger Stupp; Kathleen R Lamborn; Michael A Vogelbaum; Martin J van den Bent; Susan M Chang Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Frederic G Dhermain; Peter Hau; Heinrich Lanfermann; Andreas H Jacobs; Martin J van den Bent Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2010-08-10 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: M J van den Bent; J S Wefel; D Schiff; M J B Taphoorn; K Jaeckle; L Junck; T Armstrong; A Choucair; A D Waldman; T Gorlia; M Chamberlain; B G Baumert; M A Vogelbaum; D R Macdonald; D A Reardon; P Y Wen; S M Chang; A H Jacobs Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Gisele Brasil Caseiras; Olga Ciccarelli; Daniel R Altmann; Christopher E Benton; Daniel J Tozer; Paul S Tofts; Tarek A Yousry; Jeremy Rees; Adam D Waldman; Hans Rolf Jäger Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-09-29 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Gisele B Caseiras; Sophie Chheang; James Babb; Jeremy H Rees; Nicole Pecerrelli; Daniel J Tozer; Christopher Benton; David Zagzag; Glyn Johnson; Adam D Waldman; H R Jäger; Meng Law Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2009-02-06 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Jeremy Rees; Hilary Watt; H Rolf Jäger; Chris Benton; Daniel Tozer; Paul Tofts; Adam Waldman Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2008-07-15 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Iwan E Bennett; Kathryn M Field; Christopher M Hovens; Bradford A Moffat; Mark A Rosenthal; Katharine Drummond; Andrew H Kaye; Andrew P Morokoff Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-11-28 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Hans Kristian Bø; Ole Solheim; Asgeir Store Jakola; Kjell-Arne Kvistad; Ingerid Reinertsen; Erik Magnus Berntsen Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: J Khalifa; F Tensaouti; L Chaltiel; J-A Lotterie; I Catalaa; M P Sunyach; D Ibarrola; G Noël; G Truc; P Walker; N Magné; M Charissoux; S Ken; P Peran; I Berry; E Cohen-Jonathan Moyal; A Laprie Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-02-02 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: A J Colon; M J P van Osch; M Buijs; J V D Grond; P Boon; M A van Buchem; P A M Hofman Journal: Acta Neurol Belg Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 2.396
Authors: Jiayi Huang; Mikhail Milchenko; Yuan J Rao; Pamela LaMontagne; Christopher Abraham; Clifford G Robinson; Yi Huang; Joshua S Shimony; Keith M Rich; Tammie Benzinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-11-03 Impact factor: 3.240