Xi-Xun Qi1, Da-Fa Shi2, Si-Xie Ren3, Su-Ya Zhang1, Long Li4, Qing-Chang Li5, Li-Ming Guan6. 1. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China. 2. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, Jingzhou, 434000, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Chengdu Second People's Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, China. 4. Department of Neurosurgery, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China. 5. Department of Pathology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China. 6. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China. guanlm66@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) maps in the evaluation of glioma grading. METHODS: A total of 39 glioma patients who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were classified into low-grade (13 cases) and high-grade (26 cases) glioma groups. Parametric DKI maps were derived, and histogram metrics between low- and high-grade gliomas were analysed. The optimum diagnostic thresholds of the parameters, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were achieved using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC). RESULT: Significant differences were observed not only in 12 metrics of histogram DKI parameters (P<0.05), but also in mean diffusivity (MD) and mean kurtosis (MK) values, including age as a covariate (F=19.127, P<0.001 and F=20.894, P<0.001, respectively), between low- and high-grade gliomas. Mean MK was the best independent predictor of differentiating glioma grades (B=18.934, 22.237 adjusted for age, P<0.05). The partial correlation coefficient between fractional anisotropy (FA) and kurtosis fractional anisotropy (KFA) was 0.675 (P<0.001). The AUC of the mean MK, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.925, 88.5% and 84.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DKI parameters can effectively distinguish between low- and high-grade gliomas. Mean MK is the best independent predictor of differentiating glioma grades. KEY POINTS: • DKI is a new and important method. • DKI can provide additional information on microstructural architecture. • Histogram analysis of DKI may be more effective in glioma grading.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the value of histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) maps in the evaluation of glioma grading. METHODS: A total of 39 gliomapatients who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were classified into low-grade (13 cases) and high-grade (26 cases) glioma groups. Parametric DKI maps were derived, and histogram metrics between low- and high-grade gliomas were analysed. The optimum diagnostic thresholds of the parameters, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were achieved using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC). RESULT: Significant differences were observed not only in 12 metrics of histogram DKI parameters (P<0.05), but also in mean diffusivity (MD) and mean kurtosis (MK) values, including age as a covariate (F=19.127, P<0.001 and F=20.894, P<0.001, respectively), between low- and high-grade gliomas. Mean MK was the best independent predictor of differentiating glioma grades (B=18.934, 22.237 adjusted for age, P<0.05). The partial correlation coefficient between fractional anisotropy (FA) and kurtosis fractional anisotropy (KFA) was 0.675 (P<0.001). The AUC of the mean MK, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.925, 88.5% and 84.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: DKI parameters can effectively distinguish between low- and high-grade gliomas. Mean MK is the best independent predictor of differentiating glioma grades. KEY POINTS: • DKI is a new and important method. • DKI can provide additional information on microstructural architecture. • Histogram analysis of DKI may be more effective in glioma grading.
Authors: David N Louis; Arie Perry; Guido Reifenberger; Andreas von Deimling; Dominique Figarella-Branger; Webster K Cavenee; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Paul Kleihues; David W Ellison Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-05-09 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Julio Arevalo-Perez; Kyung K Peck; Robert J Young; Andrei I Holodny; Sasan Karimi; John K Lyo Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2015-04-13 Impact factor: 2.486
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
Authors: Michael J van Rijssel; Martijn Froeling; Astrid L H M W van Lier; Joost J C Verhoeff; Josien P W Pluim Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-07-23 Impact factor: 4.044