INTRODUCTION: Solitary brain metastasis (MET) and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) can appear similar on conventional MRI. The purpose of this study was to identify magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion and diffusion-weighted biomarkers that can differentiate MET from GBM. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients were included if they met the following criteria: underwent resection of a solitary enhancing brain tumor and had preoperative 3.0 T MRI encompassing diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion. Using co-registered images, voxel-based fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), K(trans), and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) values were obtained in the enhancing tumor and non-enhancing peritumoral T2 hyperintense region (NET2). Data were analyzed by logistic regression and analysis of variance. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal parameter/s and threshold for predicting of GBM vs. MET. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (14 M, age 32-78 years old) met our inclusion criteria. Pathology revealed 13 GBMs and 10 METs. In the enhancing tumor, rCBV, K(trans), and FA were higher in GBM, whereas MD was lower, neither without statistical significance. In the NET2, rCBV was significantly higher (p = 0.05) in GBM, but MD was significantly lower (p < 0.01) in GBM. FA and K(trans) were higher in GBM, though not reaching significance. The best discriminative power was obtained in NET2 from a combination of rCBV, FA, and MD, resulting in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.98. CONCLUSION: The combination of MR diffusion and perfusion matrices in NET2 can help differentiate GBM over solitary MET with diagnostic accuracy of 98%.
INTRODUCTION: Solitary brain metastasis (MET) and glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) can appear similar on conventional MRI. The purpose of this study was to identify magnetic resonance (MR) perfusion and diffusion-weighted biomarkers that can differentiate MET from GBM. METHODS: In this retrospective study, patients were included if they met the following criteria: underwent resection of a solitary enhancing brain tumor and had preoperative 3.0 T MRI encompassing diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE), and dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion. Using co-registered images, voxel-based fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), K(trans), and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) values were obtained in the enhancing tumor and non-enhancing peritumoral T2 hyperintense region (NET2). Data were analyzed by logistic regression and analysis of variance. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to determine the optimal parameter/s and threshold for predicting of GBM vs. MET. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients (14 M, age 32-78 years old) met our inclusion criteria. Pathology revealed 13 GBMs and 10 METs. In the enhancing tumor, rCBV, K(trans), and FA were higher in GBM, whereas MD was lower, neither without statistical significance. In the NET2, rCBV was significantly higher (p = 0.05) in GBM, but MD was significantly lower (p < 0.01) in GBM. FA and K(trans) were higher in GBM, though not reaching significance. The best discriminative power was obtained in NET2 from a combination of rCBV, FA, and MD, resulting in an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.98. CONCLUSION: The combination of MR diffusion and perfusion matrices in NET2 can help differentiate GBM over solitary MET with diagnostic accuracy of 98%.
Authors: L Blanchet; P W T Krooshof; G J Postma; A J Idema; B Goraj; A Heerschap; L M C Buydens Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Sung Ki Cho; Dong Gyu Na; Jae Wook Ryoo; Hong Gee Roh; Chan Hong Moon; Hong Sik Byun; Jong Hyun Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2002 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: William R Masch; Page I Wang; Thomas L Chenevert; Larry Junck; Christina Tsien; Jason A Heth; Pia C Sundgren Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: X Li; D Wang; S Liao; L Guo; X Xiao; X Liu; Y Xu; J Hua; J J Pillai; Y Wu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-03-05 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Choukri Mekkaoui; Philippe Metellus; William J Kostis; Roberto Martuzzi; Fabricio R Pereira; Jean-Paul Beregi; Timothy G Reese; Todd R Constable; Marcel P Jackowski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240