Literature DB >> 28987669

Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging estimates for in vivo assessment of 2016 WHO glioma grades: A cross-sectional observational study.

Johann-Martin Hempel1, Jens Schittenhelm2, Cornelia Brendle3, Benjamin Bender3, Georg Bier3, Marco Skardelly4, Ghazaleh Tabatabai5, Salvador Castaneda Vega6, Ulrike Ernemann3, Uwe Klose3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) maps for in vivo assessment of the 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System (2016 CNS WHO) integrated glioma grades.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with histopathologically-confirmed glioma who provided written informed consent were retrospectively assessed between 01/2014 and 03/2017 from a prospective trial approved by the local institutional review board. Ten histogram parameters of mean kurtosis (MK) and mean diffusivity (MD) metrics from DKI were independently assessed by two blinded physicians from a volume of interest around the entire solid tumor. One-way ANOVA was used to compare MK and MD histogram parameter values between 2016 CNS WHO-based tumor grades. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed on MK and MD histogram parameters for significant results.
RESULTS: The 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles of MK and average MK showed significant differences between IDH1/2wild-type gliomas, IDH1/2mutated gliomas, and oligodendrogliomas with chromosome 1p/19q loss of heterozygosity and IDH1/2mutation (p<0.001). The 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles showed a slightly higher diagnostic performance (area under the curve (AUC) range; 0.868-0.991) than average MK (AUC range; 0.855-0.988) in classifying glioma according to the integrated approach of 2016 CNS WHO.
CONCLUSIONS: Histogram analysis of DKI can stratify gliomas according to the integrated approach of 2016 CNS WHO. The 50th (median), 75th, and the 90th percentiles showed the highest diagnostic performance. However, the average MK is also robust and feasible in routine clinical practice.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  2016 CNS WHO; Diffusion kurtosis imaging; Glioma; Grading; Histogram analysis; Integrated diagnosis; Non-Gaussian diffusion

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28987669     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.08.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  10 in total

1.  Preoperative and Noninvasive Prediction of Gliomas Histopathological Grades and IDH Molecular Types Using Multiple MRI Characteristics.

Authors:  Ningfang Du; Xiaotao Zhou; Renling Mao; Weiquan Shu; Li Xiao; Yao Ye; Xinxin Xu; Yilang Shen; Guangwu Lin; Xuhao Fang; Shihong Li
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 5.738

2.  Machine Learning Based on Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Histogram Parameters for Glioma Grading.

Authors:  Liang Jiang; Leilei Zhou; Zhongping Ai; Chaoyong Xiao; Wen Liu; Wen Geng; Huiyou Chen; Zhenyu Xiong; Xindao Yin; Yu-Chen Chen
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-04-21       Impact factor: 4.964

3.  Imaging prediction of isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation in patients with glioma: a systemic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Chong Hyun Suh; Ho Sung Kim; Seung Chai Jung; Choong Gon Choi; Sang Joon Kim
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-07-12       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Combined 18F-FET PET and diffusion kurtosis MRI in posttreatment glioblastoma: differentiation of true progression from treatment-related changes.

Authors:  Francesco D'Amore; Farida Grinberg; Jörg Mauler; Norbert Galldiks; Ganna Blazhenets; Ezequiel Farrher; Christian Filss; Gabriele Stoffels; Felix M Mottaghy; Philipp Lohmann; Nadim Jon Shah; Karl-Josef Langen
Journal:  Neurooncol Adv       Date:  2021-03-10

5.  Texture analysis- and support vector machine-assisted diffusional kurtosis imaging may allow in vivo gliomas grading and IDH-mutation status prediction: a preliminary study.

Authors:  Sotirios Bisdas; Haocheng Shen; Steffi Thust; Vasileios Katsaros; George Stranjalis; Christos Boskos; Sebastian Brandner; Jianguo Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-04-17       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  The diagnostic role of diffusional kurtosis imaging in glioma grading and differentiation of gliomas from other intra-axial brain tumours: a systematic review with critical appraisal and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gehad Abdalla; Luke Dixon; Eser Sanverdi; Pedro M Machado; Joey S W Kwong; Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths; Antonio Rojas-Garcia; Daisuke Yoneoka; Jelle Veraart; Sofie Van Cauter; Ahmed M Abdel-Khalek; Magdy Settein; Tarek Yousry; Sotirios Bisdas
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2020-05-04       Impact factor: 2.804

7.  Quantitative analysis of neurite orientation dispersion and density imaging in grading gliomas and detecting IDH-1 gene mutation status.

Authors:  Jing Zhao; Ji-Bin Li; Jing-Yan Wang; Yu-Liang Wang; Da-Wei Liu; Xin-Bei Li; Yu-Kun Song; Yi-Su Tian; Xu Yan; Zhu-Hao Li; Shao-Fu He; Xiao-Long Huang; Li Jiang; Zhi-Yun Yang; Jian-Ping Chu
Journal:  Neuroimage Clin       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 4.881

8.  Role of diffusional kurtosis imaging in grading of brain gliomas: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Gehad Abdalla; Eser Sanverdi; Pedro M Machado; Joey S W Kwong; Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths; Antonio Rojas-Garcia; Daisuke Yoneoka; Tarek Yousry; Sotirios Bisdas
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Feasibility of generalised diffusion kurtosis imaging approach for brain glioma grading.

Authors:  E L Pogosbekian; I N Pronin; N E Zakharova; A I Batalov; A M Turkin; T A Konakova; I I Maximov
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2021-01-07       Impact factor: 2.804

10.  Glioma-Specific Diffusion Signature in Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging.

Authors:  Johann-Martin Hempel; Cornelia Brendle; Sasan Darius Adib; Felix Behling; Ghazaleh Tabatabai; Salvador Castaneda Vega; Jens Schittenhelm; Ulrike Ernemann; Uwe Klose
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-26       Impact factor: 4.241

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.