Min Kyoung Lee1, Ji Eun Park2, Youngheun Jo1, Seo Young Park3, Sang Joon Kim1, Ho Sung Kim1. 1. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 43 Olympic-ro 88, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, 43 Olympic-ro 88, Songpa-Gu, Seoul, 05505, South Korea. jieunp@gmail.com. 3. Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, South Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A combination of T2/FLAIR mismatch sign and advanced imaging parameters may improve the determination of molecular subtypes of diffuse lower-grade glioma. We assessed the diagnostic value of adding the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and cerebral blood volume (CBV) to the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign for differentiation of the IDH mutation or 1p/19q codeletion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative conventional, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging were performed on 110 patients with diffuse lower-grade gliomas. The study population was classified into three groups using molecular subtype, namely IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion (IDHmut-Codel), IDH wild type (IDHwt) and IDH mutation and no 1p/19q codeletion (IDHmut-Noncodel). T2/FLAIR mismatch sign and the histogram parameters of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and normalised cerebral blood volume (nCBV) values were assessed. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed to distinguish IDHmut-Noncodel from IDHmut-Codel and IDHwt and from IDHwt, and the performance was compared with that of single parameters using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: Positive visual T2/FLAIR mismatch sign and higher nCBV skewness were significant variables to distinguish IDHmut-Noncodel from the other two groups (AUC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). A lower ADC10 was a significant variable for distinguishing IDHmut-Noncodel from the IDHwt group (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89). Adding ADC or CBV histogram parameters to T2/FLAIR mismatch sign improved performance in distinguishing IDHmut-Noncodel from the other two groups (AUC 0.882 vs. AUC 0.810) or from IDHwt (AUC 0.923 vs. AUC 0.868). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign with ADC or CBV histogram parameters can improve the identification of IDHmut-Noncodel diffuse lower-grade gliomas, which can be easily applied in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • The combination of the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign with the ADC or CBV histogram parameters can improve the identification of IDHmut-Noncodel diffuse lower-grade gliomas. • The multivariable model showed a significantly better performance for distinguishing the IDHmut-Noncodel group from other diffuse lower-grade gliomas than the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign alone or any single parameter. • The IDHmut-Noncodel type was associated with intermediate treatment outcomes; therefore, the identification of IDHmut-Noncodel diffuse lower-grade gliomas could be helpful for determining the clinical approach.
OBJECTIVES: A combination of T2/FLAIR mismatch sign and advanced imaging parameters may improve the determination of molecular subtypes of diffuse lower-grade glioma. We assessed the diagnostic value of adding the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and cerebral blood volume (CBV) to the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign for differentiation of the IDH mutation or 1p/19q codeletion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preoperative conventional, diffusion-weighted, and dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging were performed on 110 patients with diffuse lower-grade gliomas. The study population was classified into three groups using molecular subtype, namely IDH mutation and 1p/19q codeletion (IDHmut-Codel), IDH wild type (IDHwt) and IDH mutation and no 1p/19q codeletion (IDHmut-Noncodel). T2/FLAIR mismatch sign and the histogram parameters of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and normalised cerebral blood volume (nCBV) values were assessed. A multivariate logistic regression model was constructed to distinguish IDHmut-Noncodel from IDHmut-Codel and IDHwt and from IDHwt, and the performance was compared with that of single parameters using the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: Positive visual T2/FLAIR mismatch sign and higher nCBV skewness were significant variables to distinguish IDHmut-Noncodel from the other two groups (AUC, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.96). A lower ADC10 was a significant variable for distinguishing IDHmut-Noncodel from the IDHwt group (AUC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89). Adding ADC or CBV histogram parameters to T2/FLAIR mismatch sign improved performance in distinguishing IDHmut-Noncodel from the other two groups (AUC 0.882 vs. AUC 0.810) or from IDHwt (AUC 0.923 vs. AUC 0.868). CONCLUSIONS: The combination of the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign with ADC or CBV histogram parameters can improve the identification of IDHmut-Noncodel diffuse lower-grade gliomas, which can be easily applied in clinical practice. KEY POINTS: • The combination of the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign with the ADC or CBV histogram parameters can improve the identification of IDHmut-Noncodel diffuse lower-grade gliomas. • The multivariable model showed a significantly better performance for distinguishing the IDHmut-Noncodel group from other diffuse lower-grade gliomas than the T2/FLAIR mismatch sign alone or any single parameter. • The IDHmut-Noncodel type was associated with intermediate treatment outcomes; therefore, the identification of IDHmut-Noncodel diffuse lower-grade gliomas could be helpful for determining the clinical approach.
Entities:
Keywords:
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Glioma; Isocitrate dehydrogenase; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: P D Delgado-López; E M Corrales-García; J Martino; E Lastra-Aras; M T Dueñas-Polo Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2017-03-02 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Martin J van den Bent; Leendert H J Looijenga; K Langenberg; Winand Dinjens; Wilfried Graveland; Ludo Uytdewilligen; Peter A Sillevis Smitt; Robert B Jenkins; Johan M Kros Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: S Chawla; J Krejza; A Vossough; Y Zhang; G S Kapoor; S Wang; D M O'Rourke; E R Melhem; H Poptani Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jeanette E Eckel-Passow; Daniel H Lachance; Annette M Molinaro; Kyle M Walsh; Paul A Decker; Hugues Sicotte; Melike Pekmezci; Terri Rice; Matt L Kosel; Ivan V Smirnov; Gobinda Sarkar; Alissa A Caron; Thomas M Kollmeyer; Corinne E Praska; Anisha R Chada; Chandralekha Halder; Helen M Hansen; Lucie S McCoy; Paige M Bracci; Roxanne Marshall; Shichun Zheng; Gerald F Reis; Alexander R Pico; Brian P O'Neill; Jan C Buckner; Caterina Giannini; Jason T Huse; Arie Perry; Tarik Tihan; Mitchell S Berger; Susan M Chang; Michael D Prados; Joseph Wiemels; John K Wiencke; Margaret R Wrensch; Robert B Jenkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2015-06-10 Impact factor: 176.079
Authors: Philipp Kickingereder; Felix Sahm; Alexander Radbruch; Wolfgang Wick; Sabine Heiland; Andreas von Deimling; Martin Bendszus; Benedikt Wiestler Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-11-05 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Julia Cluceru; Yannet Interian; Joanna J Phillips; Annette M Molinaro; Tracy L Luks; Paula Alcaide-Leon; Marram P Olson; Devika Nair; Marisa LaFontaine; Anny Shai; Pranathi Chunduru; Valentina Pedoia; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Susan M Chang; Janine M Lupo Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 13.029
Authors: Rajan Jain; Derek R Johnson; Sohil H Patel; Mauricio Castillo; Marion Smits; Martin J van den Bent; Andrew S Chi; Daniel P Cahill Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Alba Corell; Sandra Ferreyra Vega; Nickoleta Hoefling; Louise Carstam; Anja Smits; Thomas Olsson Bontell; Isabella M Björkman-Burtscher; Helena Carén; Asgeir Store Jakola Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 4.430