4.5 Article

Diffusion tensor-based tumor infiltration index cannot discriminate vasogenic edema from tumor-infiltrated edema

Journal

JOURNAL OF NEURO-ONCOLOGY
Volume 96, Issue 3, Pages 409-415

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11060-009-9979-0

Keywords

Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion tensor imaging; Fractional anisotropy; Tumor infiltration index; C-11-methionine positron emission tomography

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, Science and Culture of Japan [18591589, 19790997]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22659259, 19790997, 18591589] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is now used not only for delineating white matter fiber tracts, but also for assessing the histological characteristics of pathological tissues. Among these uses, predicting the extent or existence of tumor cell invasion into white matter by DTI is under extensive investigation. The previously reported tumor infiltration index (TII) holds great potential for the discrimination of pure vasogenic edema from tumor-infiltrated edema. However, conflicting data are being reported questioning the clinical value of TII. The present investigation reevaluated the utility of TII in patients with meningioma or glioma. We found that TII was unable to discriminate vasogenic from tumor-infiltrated edema. Conversely, detailed voxel-by-voxel comparison of TII and C-11-methionie PET in the T2-hyperintense area of gliomas showed that TII and C-11-methionie PET has a positive correlation, suggesting that, although TII is unable to discriminate the cause of edema, the extent of tumor cell invasion into white matter is depicted in gliomas by TII. These data suggest that TII involves both vasogenic and tumor-infiltrated factors, rather than only a single factor. A more intensive investigation is required to reach a complete understanding of TII.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available