4.5 Article

Differentiation between Glioblastomas, Solitary Brain Metastases, and Primary Cerebral Lymphomas Using Diffusion Tensor and Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced MR Imaging

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF NEURORADIOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 507-514

Publisher

AMER SOC NEURORADIOLOGY
DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2333

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Glioblastomas, brain metastases, and PCLs may have similar enhancement patterns on MR imaging, making the differential diagnosis difficult or even impossible. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a combination of DTI and DSC can assist in the differentiation of glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and PCLs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six glioblastomas, 25 brain metastases, and 16 PCLs were retrospectively identified. DTI metrics, including FA, ADC, CL, CP, CS, and rCBV were measured from the enhancing, immediate peritumoral and distant peritumoral regions. A 2-level decision tree was designed, and a multivariate logistic regression analysis was used at each level to determine the best model for classification. RESULTS: From the enhancing region, significantly elevated FA, CL, and CF and decreased CS values were observed in glioblastomas compared with brain metastases and PCLs (P < .001), whereas ADC, rCBV, and rCBV(max) values of glioblastomas were significantly higher than those of PCLs (P < .01). The best model to distinguish glioblastomas from nonglioblastomas consisted of ADC, CS (or FA) from the enhancing region, and rCBV from the immediate peritumoral region, resulting in AUC = 0.938. The best predictor to differentiate PCLs from brain metastases comprised ADC from the enhancing region and CF from the immediate peritumoral region with AUC = 0.909. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of DTI metrics and rCBV measurement can help in the differentiation of glioblastomas from brain metastases and PCLs.

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