4.4 Article

Distinction between postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury using MR diffusion tensor imaging

期刊

NEURORADIOLOGY
卷 52, 期 12, 页码 1193-1199

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00234-010-0731-4

关键词

Glioma; Recurrence; Radiation injury; Diffusion tensor imaging

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to evaluate the differentiated effectiveness of MR diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) to postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury. Conventional MRI and DTI examination were performed using Siemens 3.0 T MR System for patients with new contrast-enhancing lesions at the site of treated tumor with postoperative radiotherapy. The region of interest was manually drawn on ADC and FA maps at contrast-enhancing lesion area, peri-lesion edema, and the contra-lateral normal white matter. Then ADC and FA values were measured and, the ADC ratio and FA ratio were calculated. Twenty patients with recurrent tumor and 15 with radiation injury were confirmed by histopathologic examination (23 patients) and clinical imaging follow-up (12 patients), respectively. The mean ADC ratio and FA ratio were compared between the two lesion types. The mean ADC ratio at contrast-enhancing lesion area was significantly lower in patients with recurrent tumor (1.34 +/- 0.15) compared to that with radiation injury (1.62 +/- 0.17; P < 0.01). The mean FA ratio at contrast-enhancing lesion area was significantly higher in patients with recurrent tumor (0.45 +/- 0.03) compared to that with radiation injury (0.32 +/- 0.03; P < 0.01). Neither mean ADC ratio nor FA ratio in edema areas had statistical difference between the two groups. A recurrent tumor was suggested when either ADC ratio < 1.65 or/and FA ratio > 0.36 at contrast-enhancing lesion area according to the receiver operating characteristics curve analysis. Three patients with recurrent tumor and two with radiation injury were misclassified. DTI is a valuable method to distinguish postoperative recurrent glioma and radiation injury.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据