Hao Yu1, Huiling Lou2, Tianyu Zou1, Xianlong Wang1, Shanshan Jiang1,3, Zhongqing Huang4, Yongxing Du1, Chunxiu Jiang1, Ling Ma1, Jianbin Zhu1, Wen He1, Qihong Rui1, Jianyuan Zhou3, Zhibo Wen5. 1. Department of Radiology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Gongye Road M No.253, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510282, China. 2. Department of Geriatrics, The First People' Hospital of Guangzhou, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510180, China. 3. Division of MR Research, Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600N. Wolfe Street, Park 336, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. 4. Department of Medical Image Center, Yuebei People's Hospital, Shantou University Medical College, Shantou, Guangdong, 515041, China. 5. Department of Radiology, Zhujiang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Gongye Road M No.253, Haizhu District, Guangzhou, Guangdong, 510282, China. zhibowen@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the utility of amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) MR imaging in distinguishing solitary brain metastases (SBMs) from glioblastomas (GBMs). METHODS: Forty-five patients with SBMs and 43 patients with GBMs underwent conventional and APT-weighted sequences before clinical intervention. The APTw parameters and relative APTw (rAPTw) parameters in the tumour core and the peritumoral brain zone (PBZ) were obtained and compared between SBMs and GBMs. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the best parameter for distinguishing between the two groups. RESULTS: The APTwmax, APTwmin, APTwmean, rAPTwmax, rAPTwmin or rAPTwmean values in the tumour core were not significantly different between the SBM and GBM groups (P = 0.141, 0.361, 0.221, 0.305, 0.578 and 0.448, respectively). However, the APTwmax, APTwmin, APTwmean, rAPTwmax, rAPTwmin or rAPTwmean values in the PBZ were significantly lower in the SBM group than in the GBM group (P < 0.001). The APTwmin values had the highest area under the ROC curve 0.905 and accuracy 85.2% in discriminating between the two neoplasms. CONCLUSION: As a noninvasive imaging method, APT-weighted MR imaging can be used to distinguish SBMs from GBMs. KEY POINTS: • APTw values in the tumour core were not different between SBMs and GBMs. • APTw values in peritumoral brain zone were lower in SBMs than in GBMs. • The APTw min was the best parameter to distinguish SBMs from GBMs.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the utility of amide proton transfer-weighted (APTw) MR imaging in distinguishing solitary brain metastases (SBMs) from glioblastomas (GBMs). METHODS: Forty-five patients with SBMs and 43 patients with GBMs underwent conventional and APT-weighted sequences before clinical intervention. The APTw parameters and relative APTw (rAPTw) parameters in the tumour core and the peritumoral brain zone (PBZ) were obtained and compared between SBMs and GBMs. The receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to assess the best parameter for distinguishing between the two groups. RESULTS: The APTwmax, APTwmin, APTwmean, rAPTwmax, rAPTwmin or rAPTwmean values in the tumour core were not significantly different between the SBM and GBM groups (P = 0.141, 0.361, 0.221, 0.305, 0.578 and 0.448, respectively). However, the APTwmax, APTwmin, APTwmean, rAPTwmax, rAPTwmin or rAPTwmean values in the PBZ were significantly lower in the SBM group than in the GBM group (P < 0.001). The APTwmin values had the highest area under the ROC curve 0.905 and accuracy 85.2% in discriminating between the two neoplasms. CONCLUSION: As a noninvasive imaging method, APT-weighted MR imaging can be used to distinguish SBMs from GBMs. KEY POINTS: • APTw values in the tumour core were not different between SBMs and GBMs. • APTw values in peritumoral brain zone were lower in SBMs than in GBMs. • The APTw min was the best parameter to distinguish SBMs from GBMs.
Authors: Taofeek K Owonikoko; Jack Arbiser; Amelia Zelnak; Hui-Kuo G Shu; Hyunsuk Shim; Adam M Robin; Steven N Kalkanis; Timothy G Whitsett; Bodour Salhia; Nhan L Tran; Timothy Ryken; Michael K Moore; Kathleen M Egan; Jeffrey J Olson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: L Blanchet; P W T Krooshof; G J Postma; A J Idema; B Goraj; A Heerschap; L M C Buydens Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2010-11-04 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Adrienne N Dula; Lori R Arlinghaus; Richard D Dortch; Blake E Dewey; Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Thomas E Yankeelov; Seth A Smith Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-08-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Tara Anne Collidge; Peter Campbell Thomson; Patrick Barry Mark; James Phillip Traynor; Alan George Jardine; Scott Thomas William Morris; Keith Simpson; Giles Hannibal Roditi Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-08-17 Impact factor: 11.105