OBJECTIVE: Tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs) remain one of the most common brain lesions to mimic a brain tumor, particularly primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) and high-grade gliomas. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the ability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and conventional MRI features to differentiate TDLs from PCNSLs and high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients (24 patients with TDLs, 28 with PCNSLs, and 23 with high-grade gliomas) with 168 brain lesions (70 TDLs, 68 PCNSLs, and 30 high-grade gliomas) who underwent DWI before surgery or therapy were included in the study. Minimum ADC (ADC(min)) and average ADC (ADC(avg)) values were calculated for each lesion. ANOVA and ROC analyses were performed. ROC analyses were also performed for the presence of incomplete rim enhancement and for the number of lesions. Multiple-variable logistic regression with ROC analysis was then performed to evaluate performance in multiple-variable models. RESULTS: ADC(min) was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.01) in TDLs (mean, 0.886; 95% CI, 0.802-0.931) than in PCNSLs (0.547; 95% CI, 0.496-0.598) and high-grade gliomas (0.470; 95% CI, 0.385-0.555). (All ADC values in this article are reported in units of × 10(-3) mm(2)/s.) ADC(avg) was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.01) in TDLs (mean, 1.362; 95% CI, 1.268-1.456) than in PCNSLs (0.990; 95% CI, 0.919-1.061) but not in high-grade gliomas (1.216; 95% CI, 1.074-1.356). Multiple-variable models showed statistically significant individual effects and superior diagnostic performance on ROC analysis. CONCLUSION: TDLs can be diagnosed on preoperative MRI with a high degree of specificity; MRI features of incomplete rim enhancement, high ADC values, and a large number of lesions individually increase the probability and diagnostic confidence that a lesion is a TDL.
OBJECTIVE:Tumefactive demyelinating lesions (TDLs) remain one of the most common brain lesions to mimic a brain tumor, particularly primary CNS lymphoma (PCNSL) and high-grade gliomas. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the ability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and conventional MRI features to differentiate TDLs from PCNSLs and high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five patients (24 patients with TDLs, 28 with PCNSLs, and 23 with high-grade gliomas) with 168 brain lesions (70 TDLs, 68 PCNSLs, and 30 high-grade gliomas) who underwent DWI before surgery or therapy were included in the study. Minimum ADC (ADC(min)) and average ADC (ADC(avg)) values were calculated for each lesion. ANOVA and ROC analyses were performed. ROC analyses were also performed for the presence of incomplete rim enhancement and for the number of lesions. Multiple-variable logistic regression with ROC analysis was then performed to evaluate performance in multiple-variable models. RESULTS:ADC(min) was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.01) in TDLs (mean, 0.886; 95% CI, 0.802-0.931) than in PCNSLs (0.547; 95% CI, 0.496-0.598) and high-grade gliomas (0.470; 95% CI, 0.385-0.555). (All ADC values in this article are reported in units of × 10(-3) mm(2)/s.) ADC(avg) was statistically significantly higher (p < 0.01) in TDLs (mean, 1.362; 95% CI, 1.268-1.456) than in PCNSLs (0.990; 95% CI, 0.919-1.061) but not in high-grade gliomas (1.216; 95% CI, 1.074-1.356). Multiple-variable models showed statistically significant individual effects and superior diagnostic performance on ROC analysis. CONCLUSION: TDLs can be diagnosed on preoperative MRI with a high degree of specificity; MRI features of incomplete rim enhancement, high ADC values, and a large number of lesions individually increase the probability and diagnostic confidence that a lesion is a TDL.
Authors: B D Youl; A G Kermode; A J Thompson; T Révész; F Scaravilli; R O Barnard; F J Kirkham; B E Kendall; D Kingsley; I F Moseley Journal: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry Date: 1991-04 Impact factor: 10.154
Authors: A M Wang; J H Morris; W F Hickey; S B Hammerschlag; G V O'Reilly; C L Rumbaugh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 1983 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: K G Rieth; G Di Chiro; L D Cromwell; P E McKeever; P L Kornblith; C V Kufta; A B Pleet Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1981-10 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: L N Tanenbaum; A J Tsiouris; A N Johnson; T P Naidich; M C DeLano; E R Melhem; P Quarterman; S X Parameswaran; A Shankaranarayanan; M Goyen; A S Field Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Macarena I de la Fuente; Aya Haggiagi; Adrienne Moul; Robert J Young; Charif Sidani; Arnold Markoe; Francisco Vega; Lisa M DeAngelis; Izidore S Lossos Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2016-09-21
Authors: S B Hiremath; A Muraleedharan; S Kumar; C Nagesh; C Kesavadas; M Abraham; T R Kapilamoorthy; B Thomas Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-02-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Matthew A Tremblay; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Soonmee Cha; Tarik Tihan; Jeffrey M Gelfand Journal: J Neurol Sci Date: 2017-08-10 Impact factor: 3.181