INTRODUCTION: Linear array intraoperative ultrasound (lioUS) is an emerging technology for intracranial use. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of lioUS to detect residual tumor in patients harboring a glioblastoma. METHODS: After near total resection in 20 patients, residual tumor detection using lioUS, conventional intraoperative ultrasound (cioUS), and gadopentetic-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (Gd-DTPA)-enhanced intraoperative MRI (iMRI) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on 68 navigated biopsies. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and correlation with histopathological findings of each imaging modality were calculated. Additionally, results were evaluated in the subgroup of recurrent disease (23 biopsies in 8 patients). RESULTS: Sensitivity of lioUS (76 %) was significantly higher compared with iMRI (55 %) and cioUS (24 %). Specificity of lioUS (58 %) was significantly lower than in cioUS (96 %), while there was no significant difference to iMRI (74 %). All imaging modalities correlated significantly with histopathological findings. In the subgroup of recurrent disease, sensitivity and specificity decreased in all modalities. However, cioUS showed significant lower values than iMRI and lioUS. In ROC curves, lioUS showed a higher area und the curve (AUC) in comparison with iMRI and cioUS. We found similar results in the subgroup of recurrent disease. CONCLUSION: Tumor detection using a lioUS is significantly superior to cioUS. Overall test performance in lioUS is comparable with results of iMRI. While, the latter has a higher specificity and a significantly lower sensitivity in comparison with lioUS.
INTRODUCTION: Linear array intraoperative ultrasound (lioUS) is an emerging technology for intracranial use. We evaluated sensitivity and specificity of lioUS to detect residual tumor in patients harboring a glioblastoma. METHODS: After near total resection in 20 patients, residual tumor detection using lioUS, conventional intraoperative ultrasound (cioUS), and gadopentetic-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (Gd-DTPA)-enhanced intraoperative MRI (iMRI) were compared. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated based on 68 navigated biopsies. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves and correlation with histopathological findings of each imaging modality were calculated. Additionally, results were evaluated in the subgroup of recurrent disease (23 biopsies in 8 patients). RESULTS: Sensitivity of lioUS (76 %) was significantly higher compared with iMRI (55 %) and cioUS (24 %). Specificity of lioUS (58 %) was significantly lower than in cioUS (96 %), while there was no significant difference to iMRI (74 %). All imaging modalities correlated significantly with histopathological findings. In the subgroup of recurrent disease, sensitivity and specificity decreased in all modalities. However, cioUS showed significant lower values than iMRI and lioUS. In ROC curves, lioUS showed a higher area und the curve (AUC) in comparison with iMRI and cioUS. We found similar results in the subgroup of recurrent disease. CONCLUSION:Tumor detection using a lioUS is significantly superior to cioUS. Overall test performance in lioUS is comparable with results of iMRI. While, the latter has a higher specificity and a significantly lower sensitivity in comparison with lioUS.
Authors: A Gronningsaeter; A Kleven; S Ommedal; T E Aarseth; T Lie; F Lindseth; T Langø; G Unsgård Journal: Neurosurgery Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 4.654
Authors: Oliver Bozinov; Jan-Karl Burkhardt; Christoph M Woernle; Vincent Hagel; Nils H Ulrich; Niklaus Krayenbühl; Helmut Bertalanffy Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2011-11-12 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Nils H Ulrich; Jan-Karl Burkhardt; Carlo Serra; René-Ludwig Bernays; Oliver Bozinov Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2011-09-17 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: Jan Coburger; Jens Engelke; Angelika Scheuerle; Dietmar R Thal; Michal Hlavac; Christian Rainer Wirtz; Ralph König Journal: Neurosurg Focus Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.047
Authors: Nicole M A Krekel; Barbara M Zonderhuis; Hermien W H Schreurs; Alexander M F Lopes Cardozo; Herman Rijna; Henk van der Veen; Sandra Muller; Pieter Poortman; Louise de Widt; Wilfred K de Roos; Anne Marie Bosch; Annette H M Taets van Amerongen; Elisabeth Bergers; Mecheline H M van der Linden; Elly S M de Lange de Klerk; Henri A H Winters; Sybren Meijer; Petrousjka M P van den Tol Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2011-03-16 Impact factor: 2.102
Authors: Carmel M Moran; Stephen D Pye; William Ellis; Anna Janeczko; Keith D Morris; Alan S McNeilly; Hamish M Fraser Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2011-01-21 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Max Siekmann; Thomas Lothes; Ralph König; Christian Rainer Wirtz; Jan Coburger Journal: Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg Date: 2018-01-24 Impact factor: 2.924
Authors: Massimiliano Del Bene; Luca Raspagliesi; Giovanni Carone; Paola Gaviani; Antonio Silvani; Luigi Solbiati; Francesco Prada; Francesco DiMeco Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2022-01-26 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: Carlo Giussani; Andrea Trezza; Vittorio Ricciuti; Andrea Di Cristofori; Andrea Held; Valeria Isella; Maura Massimino Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 1.532
Authors: Rahul Sastry; Wenya Linda Bi; Steve Pieper; Sarah Frisken; Tina Kapur; William Wells; Alexandra J Golby Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2016-08-19 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Dhiego Chaves De Almeida Bastos; Parikshit Juvekar; Yanmei Tie; Nick Jowkar; Steve Pieper; Willam M Wells; Wenya Linda Bi; Alexandra Golby; Sarah Frisken; Tina Kapur Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-05-03 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Brandy Broadbent; James Tseng; Rachel Kast; Thomas Noh; Michelle Brusatori; Steven N Kalkanis; Gregory W Auner Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2016-08-13 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Zoe Z Zhang; Lisa B E Shields; David A Sun; Yi Ping Zhang; Matthew A Hunt; Christopher B Shields Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 6.244