| Literature DB >> 27410226 |
Simone Salice1, Roberto Esposito1,2, Domenico Ciavardelli3,4, Stefano Delli Pizzi1, Rossella di Bastiano1, Armando Tartaro1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the combination of imaging biomarkers obtained by means of different 3 Tesla (3T) Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) advanced techniques can improve the diagnostic accuracy in the differentiation between benign and malignant single ring-enhancing brain masses.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27410226 PMCID: PMC4943588 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 13D TFE T1-weighted sequence in the axial plane before and after contrast agent administration.
Single ring-enhancing brain masses with surrounding edema. Histology proved in A. GBM, in B. metastasis, and in C. abscess.
Mean values, standard deviations, and standard errors of the mean for PL-rADC, IC-rADC, RE-rCBV, PL-FA, and IC-FA in malignant lesions (n = 9) and abscesses (n = 5).
The significance of differences (95% confidence level) was assessed by Mann-Withney U test. SD: standard deviation. SEM: standard error of the mean.
| Malignant Lesions | Abscesses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Mean | SD (SEM) | Mean | SD (SEM) | Mann-Withney U test, p |
| PL-rADC | 1.4 | 0.3 (0.1) | 2.1 | 0.5 (0.2) | 0.029 |
| IC-rADC | 1.8 | 0.7 (0.2) | 0.6 | 0.3 (0.1) | 0.004 |
| RE-rCBV | 10 | 9 (3) | 2.4 | 0.9 (0.4) | 0.083 |
| PL-FA | 0.20 | 0.07 (0.02) | 0.14 | 0.02 (0.09) | 0.019 |
| IC-FA | 0.15 | 0.09 (0.03) | 0.3 | 0.2 (0.1) | 0.089 |
Fig 2Changes of PL-rADC, IC-rADC, RE-rCBV, PL-FA, and IC-FA between abscesses vs malignant lesions (A) and ROC analysis for IC-rADC (B).
Bar graphs show mean values ± standard error (SEM; nMalignant Lesions = 9; nAbscesses = 5). * indicates statistically significant differences as assessed by Mann-Withney U test (95% confidence level). § indicates p<0.100. The insert shows an enlarged view of the bar graph. The value of the area under curve (AUC) with the 95% confidence interval, the optimal threshold of IC-rADC, and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity are shown in the panel B.
Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of individual MRI variables.
Significance of the area under curve (AUC) was determined by the Student’s t-test taking as the null hypothesis that AUC = 0.500. IC-rADC is the only potential classifier with an AUC significantly greater then 0.500 (95% confidence level).
| Variable | AUC | t-test, p |
|---|---|---|
| IC-rADC | 0.909 (0.822–1) | 0.002 |
| PL-FA | 0.889 (0.667–1) | 0.052 |
| PL-rADC | 0.867 (0.699–1) | 0.065 |
| RE-rCBV | 0.800 (0.566–1) | 0.11 |
| IC-FA | 0.789 (0.466–0.978) | 0.070 |
Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis of significant combined MRI biomarkers calculated as ratios between pairs of single variable.
The calculated Area Under the Curve (AUC), p values from the Student’s t-test, and fold changes calculated for the 5 best predictors are shown. The optimal cut-off point selected for the classification of malignant lesions and abscesses and the corresponding sensitivity and specificity are also shown.
| Ratio | AUC | t-test, p | Fold Change | Cut-off | Specificity | Sensitivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IC-rADC/PL-NAA | 1 (1–1) | 0.008 | -3.025 | 0.359 | 1 | 1 |
| IC-rADC/IC-FA | 0.978 (0.867–1) | 0.001 | -2.401 | 2.62 | 1 | 0.9 |
| RE-rCBV/RE-FA | 0.933 (0.733–1) | 0.011 | -2.022 | 4 | 1 | 0.9 |
| IC-rADC/RE-FA | 0.911 (0.667–1) | <0.001 | -2.197 | 2.11 | 0.8 | 1 |
| IC-rADC/PL-FA | 0.911 (0.711–1) | 0.013 | -1.241 | 2.07 | 0.8 | 0.9 |