4.3 Article

Correlation between choline and MIB-1 index in human gliomas. A quantitative in proton MR spectroscopy study.

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 416-420

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jocn.2004.08.008

关键词

magnetic resonance spectroscopy; glioma; choline; MIB-1; cell density; proliferation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Choline (Cho) containing compounds are usually evaluated using magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) by relative ratios such as Cho/N-acetylaspartate (NAA) and Cho/creatine (Cre) ratios. To clarify the significance of Cho level in gliomas, we evaluated the quantified Cho level using MRS and compared it with the proliferation activity as determined by MIB-1 immunoreactivity in the histological specimen. Methods. There were seven benign and seven malignant gliomas. MRS was obtained using a single-voxel proton regional imaging of metabolites (PRIME) sequence with three different TE for T2 compensation. Quantified Cho level was compared with the number of MIB-1 immunopositive positive cells and cell density in surgical specimens. Result. A positive correlation was observed between Cho and MIB-1 in benign gliomas, whereas there was a trend to an inverse correlation in malignant glionnas. This inverse correlation became a positive correlation when the necrotic area of the tumor (on the T1-weighted gadolinium enhanced images) was excluded from the voxel of interest (VOI) for MRS, but this correlation did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions. The quantification data clarified the behavior of Cho in malignant gliomas. The quantification method has the advantage of limiting the influence of other metabolites on Cho determination. In particular, the levels of other commonly measured metabolites, including Cre, may also be altered in glioma, making ratios between metabolites misleading. Heterogeneity in the MRS VOI should be considered when evaluating the proliferative activity of malignant glioma by MRS. (c) 2005 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

4.3
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