C A P F Alves1,2, U Löbel3, J S Martin-Saavedra4, S Toescu5, M H Tsunemi6, S R Teixeira4, K Mankad3, D Hargrave7, T S Jacques8, C da Costa Leite2, F G Gonçalves4, A Vossough4, F D'Arco3. 1. From the Division of Neuroradiology (C.A.P.F.A., J.S.M.-S. S.R.T., F.G.G., A.V.), Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania alvesc@email.chop.edu. 2. Department of Radiology (C.d.C.L.), Hospital das Clinicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo. 3. Radiology Department (U.L., K.M., F.D.), UCL Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK. 4. From the Division of Neuroradiology (C.A.P.F.A., J.S.M.-S. S.R.T., F.G.G., A.V.), Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 5. Department of Neurosurgery (S.T.), UCL Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children, London, UK. 6. Department of Biostatistics (M.H.T.), Instituto de Biociências, São Paulo State University, São Paul, Brazil. 7. Pediatric Oncology Unit (D.H.), UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK. 8. Developmental Biology and Cancer Programme (T.S.J.), UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Primary posterior fossa tumors comprise a large group of neoplasias with variable aggressiveness and short and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to validate the clinical usefulness of a radiologic decision flow chart based on previously published neuroradiologic knowledge for the diagnosis of posterior fossa tumors in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted (from January 2013 to October 2019) at 2 pediatric referral centers, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, United States, and Great Ormond Street Hospital, United Kingdom. Inclusion criteria were younger than 18 years of age and histologically and molecularly confirmed posterior fossa tumors. Subjects with no available preoperative MR imaging and tumors located primarily in the brain stem were excluded. Imaging characteristics of the tumors were evaluated following a predesigned, step-by-step flow chart. Agreement between readers was tested with the Cohen κ, and each diagnosis was analyzed for accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 148 cases were included, with a median age of 3.4 years (interquartile range, 2.1-6.1 years), and a male/female ratio of 1.24. The predesigned flow chart facilitated identification of pilocytic astrocytoma, ependymoma, and medulloblastoma sonic hedgehog tumors with high sensitivity and specificity. On the basis of the results, the flow chart was adjusted so that it would also be able to better discriminate atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors and medulloblastoma groups 3 or 4 (sensitivity = 75%-79%; specificity = 92%-99%). Moreover, our adjusted flow chart was useful in ruling out ependymoma, pilocytic astrocytomas, and medulloblastoma sonic hedgehog tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The modified flow chart offers a structured tool to aid in the adjunct diagnosis of pediatric posterior fossa tumors. Our results also establish a useful starting point for prospective clinical studies and for the development of automated algorithms, which may provide precise and adequate diagnostic tools for these tumors in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Primary posterior fossa tumors comprise a large group of neoplasias with variable aggressiveness and short and long-term outcomes. This study aimed to validate the clinical usefulness of a radiologic decision flow chart based on previously published neuroradiologic knowledge for the diagnosis of posterior fossa tumors in children. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted (from January 2013 to October 2019) at 2 pediatric referral centers, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, United States, and Great Ormond Street Hospital, United Kingdom. Inclusion criteria were younger than 18 years of age and histologically and molecularly confirmed posterior fossa tumors. Subjects with no available preoperative MR imaging and tumors located primarily in the brain stem were excluded. Imaging characteristics of the tumors were evaluated following a predesigned, step-by-step flow chart. Agreement between readers was tested with the Cohen κ, and each diagnosis was analyzed for accuracy. RESULTS: A total of 148 cases were included, with a median age of 3.4 years (interquartile range, 2.1-6.1 years), and a male/female ratio of 1.24. The predesigned flow chart facilitated identification of pilocytic astrocytoma, ependymoma, and medulloblastoma sonic hedgehog tumors with high sensitivity and specificity. On the basis of the results, the flow chart was adjusted so that it would also be able to better discriminate atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumors and medulloblastoma groups 3 or 4 (sensitivity = 75%-79%; specificity = 92%-99%). Moreover, our adjusted flow chart was useful in ruling out ependymoma, pilocytic astrocytomas, and medulloblastoma sonic hedgehog tumors. CONCLUSIONS: The modified flow chart offers a structured tool to aid in the adjunct diagnosis of pediatric posterior fossa tumors. Our results also establish a useful starting point for prospective clinical studies and for the development of automated algorithms, which may provide precise and adequate diagnostic tools for these tumors in clinical practice.
Authors: A Stock; M Mynarek; T Pietsch; S M Pfister; S C Clifford; T Goschzik; D Sturm; E C Schwalbe; D Hicks; S Rutkowski; B Bison; M Pham; M Warmuth-Metz Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Kristian W Pajtler; Hendrik Witt; Martin Sill; David T W Jones; Volker Hovestadt; Fabian Kratochwil; Khalida Wani; Ruth Tatevossian; Chandanamali Punchihewa; Pascal Johann; Jüri Reimand; Hans-Jörg Warnatz; Marina Ryzhova; Steve Mack; Vijay Ramaswamy; David Capper; Leonille Schweizer; Laura Sieber; Andrea Wittmann; Zhiqin Huang; Peter van Sluis; Richard Volckmann; Jan Koster; Rogier Versteeg; Daniel Fults; Helen Toledano; Smadar Avigad; Lindsey M Hoffman; Andrew M Donson; Nicholas Foreman; Ekkehard Hewer; Karel Zitterbart; Mark Gilbert; Terri S Armstrong; Nalin Gupta; Jeffrey C Allen; Matthias A Karajannis; David Zagzag; Martin Hasselblatt; Andreas E Kulozik; Olaf Witt; V Peter Collins; Katja von Hoff; Stefan Rutkowski; Torsten Pietsch; Gary Bader; Marie-Laure Yaspo; Andreas von Deimling; Peter Lichter; Michael D Taylor; Richard Gilbertson; David W Ellison; Kenneth Aldape; Andrey Korshunov; Marcel Kool; Stefan M Pfister Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2015-05-11 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: Ben Ho; Pascal D Johann; Yura Grabovska; Mamy Jean De Dieu Andrianteranagna; Fupan Yao; Michael Frühwald; Martin Hasselblatt; Franck Bourdeaut; Daniel Williamson; Annie Huang; Marcel Kool Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Mathieu Decock; Robin De Wilde; Ruth Van der Looven; Catharine Vander Linden Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Stefania Picariello; Pietro Spennato; Jonathan Roth; Nir Shimony; Alessandra Marini; Lucia De Martino; Giancarlo Nicosia; Giuseppe Mirone; Maria Serena De Santi; Fabio Savoia; Maria Elena Errico; Lucia Quaglietta; Shlomi Costantini; Giuseppe Cinalli Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-04