Cerebral Blood Volume Analysis in Glioblastomas Using Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast-Enhanced Perfusion MRI: A Comparison of Manual and Semiautomatic Segmentation Methods

Purpose To compare the reproducibilities of manual and semiautomatic segmentation method for the measurement of normalized cerebral blood volume (nCBV) using dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced (DSC) perfusion MR imaging in glioblastomas. Materials and Methods Twenty-two patients (11 male, 11 female; 27 tumors) with histologically confirmed glioblastoma (WHO grade IV) were examined with conventional MR imaging and DSC imaging at 3T before surgery or biopsy. Then nCBV (means and standard deviations) in each mass was measured using two DSC MR perfusion analysis methods including manual and semiautomatic segmentation method, in which contrast-enhanced (CE)-T1WI and T2WI were used as structural imaging. Intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility were assessed according to each perfusion analysis method or each structural imaging. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plot, and coefficient of variation (CV) were used to evaluate reproducibility. Results Intraobserver reproducibilities on CE-T1WI and T2WI were ICC of 0.74–0.89 and CV of 20.39–36.83% in manual segmentation method, and ICC of 0.95–0.99 and CV of 8.53–16.19% in semiautomatic segmentation method, repectively. Interobserver reproducibilites on CE-T1WI and T2WI were ICC of 0.86–0.94 and CV of 19.67–35.15% in manual segmentation method, and ICC of 0.74–1.0 and CV of 5.48–49.38% in semiautomatic segmentation method, respectively. Bland-Altman plots showed a good correlation with ICC or CV in each method. The semiautomatic segmentation method showed higher intraobserver and interobserver reproducibilities at CE-T1WI-based study than other methods. Conclusion The best reproducibility was found using the semiautomatic segmentation method based on CE-T1WI for structural imaging in the measurement of the nCBV of glioblastomas.

[1]  Guido Gerig,et al.  A brain tumor segmentation framework based on outlier detection , 2004, Medical Image Anal..

[2]  A. Bjørnerud,et al.  Histogram Analysis of MR Imaging–Derived Cerebral Blood Volume Maps: Combined Glioma Grading and Identification of Low-Grade Oligodendroglial Subtypes , 2008, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[3]  R. Tanaka,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology of cerebral gliomas , 2004, Neuroradiology.

[4]  Guido Gerig,et al.  Automatic brain tumor segmentation by subject specific modification of atlas priors. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[5]  G Johnson,et al.  Histogram analysis versus region of interest analysis of dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion MR imaging data in the grading of cerebral gliomas. , 2007, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[6]  Jau-Min Wong,et al.  Automatic segmentation of meningioma from non-contrasted brain MRI integrating fuzzy clustering and region growing , 2011, BMC Medical Informatics Decis. Mak..

[7]  G Johnson,et al.  Glial neoplasms: dynamic contrast-enhanced T2*-weighted MR imaging. , 1999, Radiology.

[8]  C R Bird,et al.  Gliomas: classification with MR imaging. , 1990, Radiology.

[9]  J. Kim,et al.  Posttreatment high-grade glioma: usefulness of peak height position with semiquantitative MR perfusion histogram analysis in an entire contrast-enhanced lesion for predicting volume fraction of recurrence. , 2010, Radiology.

[10]  Dinggang Shen,et al.  Robust Computation of Mutual Information Using Spatially Adaptive Meshes , 2007, MICCAI.

[11]  J. Hald,et al.  Craniopharyngioma: radiologic and histologic findings and recurrence. , 1996, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[12]  A. Bjørnerud,et al.  Glioma grading by using histogram analysis of blood volume heterogeneity from MR-derived cerebral blood volume maps. , 2008, Radiology.

[13]  Steven R. Breault,et al.  Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis. , 2013, Radiology.

[14]  G. Johnson,et al.  Perfusion MR and Proton Spectroscopic MR in the Grading of Cerebral Gliomas , 2003 .

[15]  Glyn Johnson,et al.  Low-grade gliomas: dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging--prediction of patient clinical response. , 2006, Radiology.

[16]  Max A. Viergever,et al.  Mutual-information-based registration of medical images: a survey , 2003, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[17]  Lawrence O. Hall,et al.  Automatic tumor segmentation using knowledge-based techniques , 1998, IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging.

[18]  Glyn Johnson,et al.  Glioma grading: sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of perfusion MR imaging and proton MR spectroscopic imaging compared with conventional MR imaging. , 2003, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[19]  Glyn Johnson,et al.  Relative cerebral blood volume measurements in intracranial mass lesions: interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. , 2002, Radiology.

[20]  B. Rosen,et al.  Perfusion imaging with NMR contrast agents , 1990, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[21]  R M Weisskoff,et al.  Relative cerebral blood volume maps corrected for contrast agent extravasation significantly correlate with glioma tumor grade, whereas uncorrected maps do not. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[22]  B. Hamm,et al.  Intra- and Interobserver Variability of Linear and Volumetric Measurements of Brain Metastases Using Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2010, Investigative radiology.

[23]  George F. Reed,et al.  Use of Coefficient of Variation in Assessing Variability of Quantitative Assays , 2002, Clinical and Vaccine Immunology.

[24]  F Pedersen,et al.  Volume of Pituitary Macroadenomas: Assessment by MRI , 1992, Journal of computer assisted tomography.

[25]  Lawrence O. Hall,et al.  Automatic segmentation of non-enhancing brain tumors in magnetic resonance images , 2001, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[26]  Baard Nedregaard,et al.  Automatic glioma characterization from dynamic susceptibility contrast imaging: Brain tumor segmentation using knowledge‐based fuzzy clustering , 2009, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[27]  G. Jahng,et al.  Semiquantitative Assessment of Intratumoral Susceptibility Signals Using Non-Contrast-Enhanced High-Field High-Resolution Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging in Patients with Gliomas: Comparison with MR Perfusion Imaging , 2009, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[28]  T. Cooke,et al.  Doppler perfusion index: an interobserver and intraobserver reproducibility study. , 1998, Radiology.

[29]  E F Halpern,et al.  Cerebral blood volume maps of gliomas: comparison with tumor grade and histologic findings. , 1994, Radiology.

[30]  B. Rosen,et al.  High resolution measurement of cerebral blood flow using intravascular tracer bolus passages. Part II: Experimental comparison and preliminary results , 1996, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[31]  H. Kim,et al.  Differentiation among Glioblastoma Multiforme, Solitary Metastatic Tumor, and Lymphoma Using Whole-Tumor Histogram Analysis of the Normalized Cerebral Blood Volume in Enhancing and Perienhancing Lesions , 2010, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[32]  Michael H Lev,et al.  Glial tumor grading and outcome prediction using dynamic spin-echo MR susceptibility mapping compared with conventional contrast-enhanced MR: confounding effect of elevated rCBV of oligodendrogliomas [corrected]. , 2004, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[33]  A Zavaljevski,et al.  Multi-level adaptive segmentation of multi-parameter MR brain images. , 2000, Computerized medical imaging and graphics : the official journal of the Computerized Medical Imaging Society.