J Cha1,2, S T Kim3, D-H Nam4, D-S Kong4, H-J Kim1, Y K Kim1, H Y Kim1, G M Park1, P Jeon1, K H Kim1, H S Byun1. 1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81, Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, 135-710, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Cardiovascular and Stroke Imaging Center, Heart Vascular Stroke Institute, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81, Irwon-ro, Gangnam-gu, 135-710, Seoul, Republic of Korea. st7.kim@samsung.com. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to differentiate hemangioblastomas from metastatic brain tumors using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and compare the diagnostic performances with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 7 patients with hemangioblastoma and 15 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including DWI, DSC-MRI, and DCE-MRI. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), and DCE-MRI parameters (K trans, k ep, v e, and v p) were compared between the two groups. The diagnostic performance of each parameter was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: v p, k ep, and rCBV were significantly different between patients with hemangioblastoma and those with metastatic brain tumor (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, and p = 0.017, respectively). A v p cutoff value of 0.012 and a rCBV cutoff value of 8.0 showed the highest accuracy for differentiating hemangioblastoma from metastasis. The area under the ROC curve for v p and rCBV was 0.99 and 0.89, respectively. A v p > 0.012 showed 100 % sensitivity, 93.3 % specificity, and 95.5 % accuracy and a rCBV > 8.0 showed 85.7 % sensitivity, 93.3 % specificity, and 90.9 % accuracy for differentiating hemangioblastoma from metastatic brain tumor. CONCLUSION: DCE-MRI was useful for differentiating hemangioblastoma from metastatic brain tumor.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to differentiate hemangioblastomas from metastatic brain tumors using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and compare the diagnostic performances with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and dynamic susceptibility contrast magnetic resonance imaging (DSC-MRI). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 7 patients with hemangioblastoma and 15 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including DWI, DSC-MRI, and DCE-MRI. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV), and DCE-MRI parameters (K trans, k ep, v e, and v p) were compared between the two groups. The diagnostic performance of each parameter was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: v p, k ep, and rCBV were significantly different between patients with hemangioblastoma and those with metastatic brain tumor (p < 0.001, p = 0.005, and p = 0.017, respectively). A v p cutoff value of 0.012 and a rCBV cutoff value of 8.0 showed the highest accuracy for differentiating hemangioblastoma from metastasis. The area under the ROC curve for v p and rCBV was 0.99 and 0.89, respectively. A v p > 0.012 showed 100 % sensitivity, 93.3 % specificity, and 95.5 % accuracy and a rCBV > 8.0 showed 85.7 % sensitivity, 93.3 % specificity, and 90.9 % accuracy for differentiating hemangioblastoma from metastatic brain tumor. CONCLUSION: DCE-MRI was useful for differentiating hemangioblastoma from metastatic brain tumor.
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: T B Nguyen; G O Cron; J F Mercier; C Foottit; C H Torres; S Chakraborty; J Woulfe; G H Jansen; J M Caudrelier; J Sinclair; M J Hogan; R E Thornhill; I G Cameron Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: J Cha; S T Kim; H-J Kim; B-J Kim; Y K Kim; J Y Lee; P Jeon; K H Kim; D-S Kong; D-H Nam Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2014-03-27 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: K M Kang; C-H Sohn; S-H You; J G Nam; S H Choi; T J Yun; R-E Yoo; J-H Kim Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-09-14 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Catherine Coolens; Matt N Gwilliam; Paula Alcaide-Leon; Isabella Maria de Freitas Faria; Fabio Ynoe de Moraes Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-23 Impact factor: 6.639