| Literature DB >> 26528388 |
Tourisa Deilami1, Homayoun Hadizadeh Kharrazi1, Amir Saied Seddighi2, Parin Tanzifi3, Reza Tayebivaljouzi4, Fatemeh Zamani1, Atefeh Chavoshzadeh Tafti5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and its different scalar values such as fractional anisotropy (FA) have recently been used for evaluation of peri-tumoral white matter (WM) involvement to help define safer surgical excision margins.Entities:
Keywords: Anisotropy; Brain Neoplasms; Diffusion Tensor Imaging; White Matter
Year: 2015 PMID: 26528388 PMCID: PMC4623775 DOI: 10.5812/iranjradiol.9567v2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Radiol ISSN: 1735-1065 Impact factor: 0.212
Characteristics of White Matter Involvement in Calculated ΔFA% [a]
| Type of Involvement | ΔFA% Strata | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st Quartile (< -60) | 2nd Quartile (-60 to -35) | 3rd Quartile (-34.9 to 0) | 4th Quartile (> 0) | |
|
| 14 (25.9) | 20 (37.0) | 18 (33.3) | 2 (3.7) |
| Within Edema | 14 (34.1) | 19 (46.3) | 7 (17.1) | 1 (2.4) |
| Outside Edema | 0 | 1 (7.7) | 11 (84.6) | 1 (7.7) |
|
| 0 | 0 | 7 (31.8) | 15 (68.2) |
| Within Edema | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 (100) |
| Outside Edema | 0 | 0 | 7 (33.0) | 14 (66.7) |
|
| 9 (60.0) | 5 (33.3) | 1 (6.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| Within Edema | 9 (60.0) | 5 (33.3) | 1 (6.7) | 0 |
| Outside Edema | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 5 (55.6) | 4 (44.4) |
a Data are presented as No. (%); ΔFA%: Percentage of Fractional Anisotropy Decrement.
Mean of ΔFA% and Its Range in Different Involved Tracts Within and Outside Edema
| Involvement | Mean ΔFA, % | FA Range, Lesion | ΔFA Range, % |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Total | 4.564 [ | 0.39 - 0.87 | (-11.44) - (+18.41) |
| Within edema | 17.08 [ | 0.67 - 0.67 | (+17.08) - (+17.08) |
| Outside edema | 3.97 [ | 0.39 - 0.87 | (-11.44) - (+18.41) |
| P Value | NS | ||
|
| |||
| Total | -63.52 [ | 0.09 - 0.43 | (-83.75) - (-21.39) |
| Within edema | -63.52 [ | 0.09 - 0.43 | (-83.75) - (-21.39) |
|
| |||
| Total | -42.70 [ | 0.09 - 0.77 | (-83.65) - (+8.47) |
| Within edema | -50.62 [ | 0.05 - 0.65 | (-83.65) - (+1.09) |
| Outside edema | -17.72[ | 0.31 - 0.77 | (-37.46) - (+8.47) |
| P Value | 0.021 | ||
|
| 3.98 [ | 0.35 - 0.76 | (-15.36) - (+38.41) |
a P value = 0.002.
b P value < 0.001.
c P value = NS.
Relationship Between Tumor Grade and Type of White Matter Involvement [a]
| Grading | Values |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Displacement | 7 (30.5) |
| Infiltration | 15 (65.2) |
| Disruption | 1 (4.3) |
| Edema | 0 (0.0) |
|
| |
| Edema | 9 (12.2) |
| Disruption | 14 (19) |
| Infiltration | 36 (48.6) |
| Displacement | 15 (20.2) |
a Data are presented as No. (%).
Evaluation of Presumptive ΔFAs % Cut Points for Disruption [a]
| Presumptive Δ FA% Cut Points | With Disruption | Without Disruption | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV | P Value | Odds ratio(95% Confidence Interval) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 100 | 38.8 | 22.4 | 100 | 0.003 | |||
| 15 | 52 | |||||||
| 0 | 33 | |||||||
|
| 93.3 | 54.1 | 26.4 | 97.9 | < 0.001 | 16.5 (2.07 - 131.27) | ||
| 14 | 39 | |||||||
| 1 | 46 | |||||||
|
| 60 | 83.5 | 39.1 | 92.2 | < 0.001 | 7.6 (2.33 - 24.79) | ||
| 9 | 14 | |||||||
| 6 | 71 | |||||||
|
| 60 | 84.7 | 40.9 | 92.3 | < 0.001 | 8.30 (2.52 - 27.3) | ||
| 9 | 13 | |||||||
| 6 | 72 | |||||||
|
| 53.3 | 92.9 | 57.1 | 91.9 | < 0.001 | 15 (4.05 - 55.8) | ||
| 8 | 6 | |||||||
| 7 | 79 | |||||||
|
| 6.7 | 97.6 | 33.3 | 85.6 | 0.367 | 2.96 (0.25 - 34.91) | ||
| 1 | 2 | |||||||
| 14 | 83 |
a Abbreviations: NPV, negative predictive value; PPV, positive predictive value.
Figure 1.DTI reconstruction, the normal corticospinal tract (green) versus the contralateral (yellow) tract, displaced by the tumor bulk, viewed from the posterior
Figure 3.DTI reconstruction, the normal IFO (inferior fronto-occipital fasciculus) (red) versus the contralateral (yellow) side destroyed by the tumor bulk, viewed from lateral. Reconstruction schematically shows the disrupted tract as having a few maintained white matter fibers