PURPOSE: To compare four methods of region-of-interest (ROI) placement for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in distinguishing low-grade gliomas (LGGs) from high-grade gliomas (HGGs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent readers measured ADC parameters using four ROI methods (single-slice [single-round, five-round and freehand] and whole-volume) on 43 patients (20 LGGs, 23 HGGs) who had undergone 3.0 Tesla diffusion-weighted imaging and time required for each method of ADC measurements was recorded. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess interobserver variability of ADC measurements. Mean and minimum ADC values and time required were compared using paired Student's t-tests. All ADC parameters (mean/minimum ADC values of three single-slice methods, mean/minimum/standard deviation/skewness/kurtosis/the10th and 25th percentiles/median/maximum of whole-volume method) were correlated with tumor grade (low versus high) by unpaired Student's t-tests. Discriminative ability was determined by receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: All ADC measurements except minimum, skewness, and kurtosis of whole-volume ROI differed significantly between LGGs and HGGs (all P < 0.05). Mean ADC value of single-round ROI had the highest effect size (0.72) and the greatest areas under the curve (0.872). Three single-slice methods had good to excellent ICCs (0.67-0.89) and the whole-volume method fair to excellent ICCs (0.32-0.96). Minimum ADC values differed significantly between whole-volume and single-round ROI (P = 0.003) and, between whole-volume and five-round ROI (P = 0.001). The whole-volume method took significantly longer than all single-slice methods (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ADC measurements are influenced by ROI determination methods. Whole-volume histogram analysis did not yield better results than single-slice methods and took longer. Mean ADC value derived from single-round ROI is the most optimal parameter for differentiating LGGs from HGGs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:722-730.
PURPOSE: To compare four methods of region-of-interest (ROI) placement for apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in distinguishing low-grade gliomas (LGGs) from high-grade gliomas (HGGs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent readers measured ADC parameters using four ROI methods (single-slice [single-round, five-round and freehand] and whole-volume) on 43 patients (20 LGGs, 23 HGGs) who had undergone 3.0 Tesla diffusion-weighted imaging and time required for each method of ADC measurements was recorded. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess interobserver variability of ADC measurements. Mean and minimum ADC values and time required were compared using paired Student's t-tests. All ADC parameters (mean/minimum ADC values of three single-slice methods, mean/minimum/standard deviation/skewness/kurtosis/the10th and 25th percentiles/median/maximum of whole-volume method) were correlated with tumor grade (low versus high) by unpaired Student's t-tests. Discriminative ability was determined by receiver operating characteristic curves. RESULTS: All ADC measurements except minimum, skewness, and kurtosis of whole-volume ROI differed significantly between LGGs and HGGs (all P < 0.05). Mean ADC value of single-round ROI had the highest effect size (0.72) and the greatest areas under the curve (0.872). Three single-slice methods had good to excellent ICCs (0.67-0.89) and the whole-volume method fair to excellent ICCs (0.32-0.96). Minimum ADC values differed significantly between whole-volume and single-round ROI (P = 0.003) and, between whole-volume and five-round ROI (P = 0.001). The whole-volume method took significantly longer than all single-slice methods (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ADC measurements are influenced by ROI determination methods. Whole-volume histogram analysis did not yield better results than single-slice methods and took longer. Mean ADC value derived from single-round ROI is the most optimal parameter for differentiating LGGs from HGGs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;45:722-730.
Authors: S C Thust; J A Maynard; M Benenati; S J Wastling; L Mancini; Z Jaunmuktane; S Brandner; H R Jäger Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Y Ota; S Naganawa; R Kurokawa; J R Bapuraj; A Capizzano; J Kim; T Moritani; A Srinivasan Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: S C Thust; S Hassanein; S Bisdas; J H Rees; H Hyare; J A Maynard; S Brandner; C Tur; H R Jäger; T A Yousry; L Mancini Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 5.315