Robert J Young1, Ek T Tan2, Kyung K Peck3, Mehrnaz Jenabi4, Sasan Karimi5, Nicole Brennan4, Jennifer Rubel4, John Lyo5, Weiji Shi6, Zhigang Zhang6, Marcel Prastawa2, Xiaofeng Liu2, Jonathan I Sperl2, Robin Fatovic4, Luca Marinelli2, Andrei I Holodny5. 1. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Brain Tumor Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. Electronic address: youngrobert@gmail.com. 2. Department of Diagnostics, Imaging and Biomedical Technologies, GE Global Research. 3. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Department of Medical Physics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. 4. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. 5. Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Brain Tumor Center, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. 6. Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare compressed diffusion spectrum imaging (CS-DSI) with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in patients with intracranial masses. We hypothesized that CS-DSI would provide superior visualization of the motor and language tracts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 25 consecutive patients with intracranial masses who underwent DTI and CS-DSI for preoperative planning. Directionally-encoded anisotropy maps, and streamline hand corticospinal motor tracts and arcuate fasciculus language tracts were graded according to a 3-point scale. Tract counts, anisotropy, and lengths were also calculated. Comparisons were made using exact marginal homogeneity, McNemar's and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Readers preferred the CS-DSI over DTI anisotropy maps in 92% of the cases, and the CS-DSI over DTI tracts in 84%. The motor tracts were graded as excellent in 80% of cases for CS-DSI versus 52% for DTI; 58% of the motor tracts graded as acceptable in DTI were graded as excellent in CS-DSI (p=0.02). The language tracts were graded as excellent in 68% for CS-DSI versus none for DTI; 78% of the language tracts graded as acceptable by DTI were graded as excellent by CS-DSI (p<0.001). CS-DSI demonstrated smaller normalized mean differences than DTI for motor tract counts, anisotropy and language tract counts (p≤0.01). CONCLUSION: CS-DSI was preferred over DTI for the evaluation of motor and language white matter tracts in patients with intracranial masses. Results suggest that CS-DSI may be more useful than DTI for preoperative planning purposes.
PURPOSE: To compare compressed diffusion spectrum imaging (CS-DSI) with diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) in patients with intracranial masses. We hypothesized that CS-DSI would provide superior visualization of the motor and language tracts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 25 consecutive patients with intracranial masses who underwent DTI and CS-DSI for preoperative planning. Directionally-encoded anisotropy maps, and streamline hand corticospinal motor tracts and arcuate fasciculus language tracts were graded according to a 3-point scale. Tract counts, anisotropy, and lengths were also calculated. Comparisons were made using exact marginal homogeneity, McNemar's and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Readers preferred the CS-DSI over DTI anisotropy maps in 92% of the cases, and the CS-DSI over DTI tracts in 84%. The motor tracts were graded as excellent in 80% of cases for CS-DSI versus 52% for DTI; 58% of the motor tracts graded as acceptable in DTI were graded as excellent in CS-DSI (p=0.02). The language tracts were graded as excellent in 68% for CS-DSI versus none for DTI; 78% of the language tracts graded as acceptable by DTI were graded as excellent by CS-DSI (p<0.001). CS-DSI demonstrated smaller normalized mean differences than DTI for motor tract counts, anisotropy and language tract counts (p≤0.01). CONCLUSION:CS-DSI was preferred over DTI for the evaluation of motor and language white matter tracts in patients with intracranial masses. Results suggest that CS-DSI may be more useful than DTI for preoperative planning purposes.
Authors: David S Tuch; Timothy G Reese; Mette R Wiegell; Nikos Makris; John W Belliveau; Van J Wedeen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jeffrey I Berman; Mitchel S Berger; Sung Won Chung; Srikantan S Nagarajan; Roland G Henry Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Jonathan I Sperl; Marion I Menzel; Christopher J Hardy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: John L Ulmer; Andrew P Klein; Wade M Mueller; Edgar A DeYoe; Leighton P Mark Journal: Neuroimaging Clin N Am Date: 2014-11-01 Impact factor: 2.264
Authors: Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Zachary W Slavens; Kevin F King; Christopher J Hardy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Guenther C Feigl; Wolfgang Hiergeist; Claudia Fellner; Karl-Michael M Schebesch; Christian Doenitz; Thomas Finkenzeller; Alexander Brawanski; Juergen Schlaier Journal: World Neurosurg Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 2.104
Authors: Giancarlo D'Andrea; Albina Angelini; Andrea Romano; Antonio Di Lauro; Giovanni Sessa; Alessandro Bozzao; Luigi Ferrante Journal: Neurosurg Rev Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 3.042
Authors: Steen Moeller; Essa Yacoub; Cheryl A Olman; Edward Auerbach; John Strupp; Noam Harel; Kâmil Uğurbil Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Zhixi Li; Kyung K Peck; Nicole P Brennan; Mehrnaz Jenabi; Meier Hsu; Zhigang Zhang; Andrei I Holodny; Robert J Young Journal: J Biomed Sci Eng Date: 2013-02
Authors: Gayle R Salama; Linda A Heier; Praneil Patel; Rohan Ramakrishna; Rajiv Magge; Apostolos John Tsiouris Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2018-01-22 Impact factor: 4.003