4.2 Article

Analysis of T2 signal intensity helps in the differentiation between high and low-grade brain tumours in paediatric patients

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC NEUROLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 108-113

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejpn.2015.09.006

关键词

Brain Tumours; Children; T2 Signal intensity; MRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Previous studies hypothesized that the analysis of magnetic resonance intensity of the solid portion in paediatric tumours can provide pre-surgical information about the histopathology. Classically, high signal-intensity in T2weighted (T2w) images identifies low-grade tumours, while anaplasia is characterized by T2 hypointensity. We aimed to investigate if T2w signal intensities can pre-operatively distinguish between low-grade and high-grade brain tumours in paediatric patients. Methods: Two raters, blinded to the histological diagnosis, rated the signal intensity of MR images (T2w) from 36 children with newly diagnosed brain tumours, 17 children with low-grade brain tumours and 19 children with high-grade brain tumours were included in this study. Relative T2 values were obtained by dividing the T2w values of the solid portion of the tumour by the T2w values of the vitreous humour. Results: The best cut-off point to distinguish low and high-grade paediatric brain tumours was 0.8. If the signal intensity was less than or equal to 0.8 the tumour was expected to be a high-grade tumour with a sensitivity of 100%. Prediction of a low-grade tumour was more uncertain with a sensitivity of 70.5%. Overall, 86% of the tumours would have been predicted correctly. Conclusion: Our data suggest that T2w signal intensities of the solid portion of brain tumours in paediatrics can pre-operatively differentiate between low-grade and high-grade tumours. In addition, T2 hypointensity may be helpful in targeting stereotactic biopsy. (C) 2015 European Paediatric Neurology Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.2
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