4.4 Article

Apparent Diffusion Coefficient of Pediatric Cerebellar Tumors: A Biomarker of Tumor Grade?

期刊

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
卷 60, 期 12, 页码 2036-2041

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.24578

关键词

apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC); cerebellar tumors; children; diffusion weighted imaging (DWI); magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [PBZHP3-133288]
  2. Anna Muller Grocholski Foundation, Zurich, Switzerland
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PBZHP3-133288] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BackgroundThe role of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) to reliably differentiate tumor types and grades in pediatric cerebellar tumors is controversial. We aimed to clarify the discrepancy reported in previous articles. ProceduresWe retrospectively evaluated the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of the enhancing, solid parts of cerebellar tumors and correlated the absolute tumor ADC values and cerebellar and thalamic ratios with histology in a cohort of children with cerebellar tumors. ResultsTwenty-four children (12 females) were included in the study. The median age at pre-surgical MRI was 10 years (range 29 days-18.5 years). Absolute ADC values (mean 1.49, SD 0.25 vs. 0.630.18), cerebellar (2.04 +/- 0.33 vs. 0.83 +/- 0.25), and thalamic ratio (1.98 +/- 0.35 vs. 0.79 +/- 0.23) were significantly higher in low- than in high-grade tumors (P<0.0001). Absolute ADC values and cerebellar and thalamic ratios were significantly higher in low-grade astrocytomas than in MBs. Overlap was seen for WHO grade II and III ependymomas. One hundred percent specific cutoff ADC values of >1.2x10(3) and <0.8x10(-3)mm(2)/s were established for low- and high-grade tumors. ConclusionADC analysis of the solid, contrast enhancing components of pediatric cerebellar tumors may facilitate differentiation between various tumor histologies. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2013;60:2036-2041. (c) 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

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