BACKGROUND: 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) facilitates noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors by providing metabolite profiles. Prospective studies of diagnostic accuracy and comparisons with conventional MRI are lacking. We aimed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of MRS for childhood brain tumors and determine added clinical value compared with conventional MRI. METHODS: Children presenting to a tertiary pediatric center with brain lesions from December 2015 through 2017 were included. MRI and single-voxel MRS were acquired on 52 tumors and sequentially interpreted by 3 radiologists, blinded to histopathology. Proportions of correct diagnoses and interrater agreement at each stage were compared. Cases were reviewed to determine added value of qualitative radiological review of MRS through increased certainty of correct diagnosis, reduced number of differentials, or diagnosis following spectroscopist evaluation. Final diagnosis was agreed by the tumor board at study end. RESULTS: Radiologists' principal MRI diagnosis was correct in 69%, increasing to 77% with MRS. MRI + MRS resulted in significantly more additional correct diagnoses than MRI alone (P = .035). There was a significant increase in interrater agreement when correct with MRS (P = .046). Added value following radiologist interpretation of MRS occurred in 73% of cases, increasing to 83% with additional spectroscopist review. First histopathological diagnosis was available a median of 9.5 days following imaging, with 25% of all patients managed without conclusive histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: MRS can improve the accuracy of noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors and add value in the diagnostic pathway. Incorporation into practice has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis, guide treatment planning, and improve patient care.
BACKGROUND: 1H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) facilitates noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors by providing metabolite profiles. Prospective studies of diagnostic accuracy and comparisons with conventional MRI are lacking. We aimed to evaluate diagnostic accuracy of MRS for childhood brain tumors and determine added clinical value compared with conventional MRI. METHODS: Children presenting to a tertiary pediatric center with brain lesions from December 2015 through 2017 were included. MRI and single-voxel MRS were acquired on 52 tumors and sequentially interpreted by 3 radiologists, blinded to histopathology. Proportions of correct diagnoses and interrater agreement at each stage were compared. Cases were reviewed to determine added value of qualitative radiological review of MRS through increased certainty of correct diagnosis, reduced number of differentials, or diagnosis following spectroscopist evaluation. Final diagnosis was agreed by the tumor board at study end. RESULTS: Radiologists' principal MRI diagnosis was correct in 69%, increasing to 77% with MRS. MRI + MRS resulted in significantly more additional correct diagnoses than MRI alone (P = .035). There was a significant increase in interrater agreement when correct with MRS (P = .046). Added value following radiologist interpretation of MRS occurred in 73% of cases, increasing to 83% with additional spectroscopist review. First histopathological diagnosis was available a median of 9.5 days following imaging, with 25% of all patients managed without conclusive histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: MRS can improve the accuracy of noninvasive diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors and add value in the diagnostic pathway. Incorporation into practice has the potential to facilitate early diagnosis, guide treatment planning, and improve patient care.
Authors: Mark S Shiroishi; Ashok Panigrahy; Kevin R Moore; Marvin D Nelson; Floyd H Gilles; Ignacio Gonzalez-Gomez; Stefan Blüml Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2015-07-04 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: N P Davies; M Wilson; L M Harris; K Natarajan; S Lateef; L Macpherson; S Sgouros; R G Grundy; T N Arvanitis; A C Peet Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: A Panigrahy; M D Krieger; I Gonzalez-Gomez; X Liu; J G McComb; J L Finlay; M D Nelson; F H Gilles; S Blüml Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: N P Davies; M Wilson; K Natarajan; Y Sun; L MacPherson; M-A Brundler; T N Arvanitis; R G Grundy; A C Peet Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: M C Preul; Z Caramanos; D L Collins; J G Villemure; R Leblanc; A Olivier; R Pokrupa; D L Arnold Journal: Nat Med Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 53.440
Authors: David N Louis; Hiroko Ohgaki; Otmar D Wiestler; Webster K Cavenee; Peter C Burger; Anne Jouvet; Bernd W Scheithauer; Paul Kleihues Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Karen Manias; Simrandip K Gill; Niloufar Zarinabad; Paul Davies; Martin English; Daniel Ford; Lesley MacPherson; Ina Nicklaus-Wollenteit; Adam Oates; Guirish Solanki; Jenny Adamski; Martin Wilson; Andrew C Peet Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2017-05-13
Authors: E Orphanidou-Vlachou; D Auer; M A Brundler; N P Davies; T Jaspan; L MacPherson; K Natarajan; Y Sun; T N Arvanitis; R G Grundy; A C Peet Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2013-03-13 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Shivaram Avula; Andrew Peet; Giovanni Morana; Paul Morgan; Monika Warmuth-Metz; Tim Jaspan Journal: Childs Nerv Syst Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 1.475
Authors: H Zhou; R Hu; O Tang; C Hu; L Tang; K Chang; Q Shen; J Wu; B Zou; B Xiao; J Boxerman; W Chen; R Y Huang; L Yang; H X Bai; C Zhu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07 Impact factor: 3.825