4.2 Article

Multiparametric analysis of magnetic resonance images for glioma grading and patient survival time prediction

Journal

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
Volume 52, Issue 9, Pages 1052-1060

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1258/ar.2011.100510

Keywords

MR imaging; perfusion; brain; primary neoplasms

Funding

  1. Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital (Oslo, Norway)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: A systematic comparison of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) options for glioma diagnosis is lacking. Purpose: To investigate multiple MR-derived image features with respect to diagnostic accuracy in tumor grading and survival prediction in glioma patients. Material and Methods: T1 pre- and post-contrast, T2 and dynamic susceptibility contrast scans of 74 glioma patients with histologically confirmed grade were acquired. For each patient, a set of statistical features was obtained from the parametric maps derived from the original images, in a region-of-interest encompassing the tumor volume. A forward stepwise selection procedure was used to find the best combinations of features for grade prediction with a cross-validated logistic model and survival time prediction with a cox proportional-hazards regression. Results: Presence/absence of enhancement paired with kurtosis of the FM (first moment of the first-pass curve) was the feature combination that best predicted tumor grade (grade II vs. grade III-IV; median AUC = 0.96), with the main contribution being due to the first of the features. A lower predictive value (median AUC = 0.82) was obtained when grade IV tumors were excluded. Presence/absence of enhancement alone was the best predictor for survival time, and the regression was significant (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Presence/absence of enhancement, reflecting transendothelial leakage, was the feature with highest predictive value for grade and survival time in glioma patients.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available