Luke Dixon1, Gurpreet Kaur Jandu2, Jai Sidpra3,4, Kshitij Mankad3,4. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Imperial University Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 2. Cardiff University Medical School, Cardiff, UK. 3. Developmental Biology and Cancer Section, University College London Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK. 4. Department of Neuroradiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of qualitative reporting of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the classification of paediatric brain tumours. METHODS: Preoperative MRI reports of 608 children prior to resection or biopsy of an intracranial lesion were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 550 children had complete radiological and histopathological notes, thereby reaching our inclusion criteria. Concordance between MRI report and final histopathological diagnosis was assessed using an established lexicon derived from the WHO 2016 classification of CNS tumours. Levels of agreement based on cellular origin, tumour type, and tumour grade were evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy differed significantly between tumour types and tumour grades. Sensitivities were highest for ependymomas and sellar, pituitary, pineal, and cranial and/or paraspinal nerve tumours (range 80.65-100%). Sensitivity was slightly lower for astrocytic gliomas, oligodendrogliomas, and choroid plexus, neuronal, mixed neuronal-glial, embryonal, and histiocytic tumours (range 63.33-79.59%). Low sensitivities were noted for meningiomas and mesenchymal non-meningothelial, melanocytic, and germ cell tumours (range 0-56.25%). The most correct tumour type predictions were made in the posterior fossa whilst the most incorrect predictions were made in the lobar regions, pineal/tectal plate area, and the supratentorial ventricles. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest published series investigating the predictive accuracy of MRI in paediatric brain tumours. We show that diagnostic accuracy varies greatly by tumour type and location. Looking forward, we should develop and leverage computational methods to improve accuracy in the tumour types and anatomical locations where qualitative diagnostic accuracy is lower. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: To investigate the accuracy of qualitative reporting of conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the classification of paediatric brain tumours. METHODS: Preoperative MRI reports of 608 children prior to resection or biopsy of an intracranial lesion were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 550 children had complete radiological and histopathological notes, thereby reaching our inclusion criteria. Concordance between MRI report and final histopathological diagnosis was assessed using an established lexicon derived from the WHO 2016 classification of CNS tumours. Levels of agreement based on cellular origin, tumour type, and tumour grade were evaluated. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Diagnostic accuracy differed significantly between tumour types and tumour grades. Sensitivities were highest for ependymomas and sellar, pituitary, pineal, and cranial and/or paraspinal nerve tumours (range 80.65-100%). Sensitivity was slightly lower for astrocytic gliomas, oligodendrogliomas, and choroid plexus, neuronal, mixed neuronal-glial, embryonal, and histiocytic tumours (range 63.33-79.59%). Low sensitivities were noted for meningiomas and mesenchymal non-meningothelial, melanocytic, and germ cell tumours (range 0-56.25%). The most correct tumour type predictions were made in the posterior fossa whilst the most incorrect predictions were made in the lobar regions, pineal/tectal plate area, and the supratentorial ventricles. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest published series investigating the predictive accuracy of MRI in paediatric brain tumours. We show that diagnostic accuracy varies greatly by tumour type and location. Looking forward, we should develop and leverage computational methods to improve accuracy in the tumour types and anatomical locations where qualitative diagnostic accuracy is lower. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Quinn T Ostrom; Peter M de Blank; Carol Kruchko; Claire M Petersen; Peter Liao; Jonathan L Finlay; Duncan S Stearns; Johannes E Wolff; Yingli Wolinsky; John J Letterio; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: Vijay Ramaswamy; Marc Remke; Eric Bouffet; Simon Bailey; Steven C Clifford; Francois Doz; Marcel Kool; Christelle Dufour; Gilles Vassal; Till Milde; Olaf Witt; Katja von Hoff; Torsten Pietsch; Paul A Northcott; Amar Gajjar; Giles W Robinson; Laetitia Padovani; Nicolas André; Maura Massimino; Barry Pizer; Roger Packer; Stefan Rutkowski; Stefan M Pfister; Michael D Taylor; Scott L Pomeroy Journal: Acta Neuropathol Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 17.088
Authors: Lydia T Tam; Kristen W Yeom; Jason N Wright; Alok Jaju; Alireza Radmanesh; Michelle Han; Sebastian Toescu; Maryam Maleki; Eric Chen; Andrew Campion; Hollie A Lai; Azam A Eghbal; Ozgur Oztekin; Kshitij Mankad; Darren Hargrave; Thomas S Jacques; Robert Goetti; Robert M Lober; Samuel H Cheshier; Sandy Napel; Mourad Said; Kristian Aquilina; Chang Y Ho; Michelle Monje; Nicholas A Vitanza; Sarah A Mattonen Journal: Neurooncol Adv Date: 2021-03-05
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: J L Quon; W Bala; L C Chen; J Wright; L H Kim; M Han; K Shpanskaya; E H Lee; E Tong; M Iv; J Seekins; M P Lungren; K R M Braun; T Y Poussaint; S Laughlin; M D Taylor; R M Lober; H Vogel; P G Fisher; G A Grant; V Ramaswamy; N A Vitanza; C Y Ho; M S B Edwards; S H Cheshier; K W Yeom Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-08-13 Impact factor: 4.966