Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one- versus two-parameter pilot method.

PURPOSE To assess the utility of both minimum apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) and ADC difference values for grading astrocytic tumors at magnetic resonance imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS The hospital's institutional review board approved this retrospective study and waived informed consent. Fifty patients (23 male patients, 27 female patients; median age, 53 years) with newly diagnosed astrocytic tumors were evaluated. Two observers blinded to clinical information independently measured the ADCs by manually placing three to five regions of interest (40-60 mm(2)) within the solid tumor either with or without contrast material-enhanced components and calculated the average ADC. Minimum and maximum ADCs were selected, and the difference between them was recorded as the ADC difference value. These ADC values were used as the parameters for tumor grading and were compared by using the Kruskal-Wallis test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS According to ROC analyses for distinguishing tumor grade, minimum ADCs showed the largest areas under the ROC curve. Minimum ADCs optimally helped distinguish grade 1 from higher-grade tumors at a cutoff value of 1.47 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec and grade 4 from lower-grade tumors at a cutoff value of 1.01 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec (P < .001 for both). ADC difference values helped distinguish grade 2 from grade 3 tumors at a cutoff value of 0.31 x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec (P < .001). When tumors were graded by using the combined minimum ADC and ADC difference cutoff values mentioned above (the two-parameter method), the following positive predictive values were obtained: grade 1 tumors, 73% (eight of 11); grade 2 tumors, 100% (five of five); grade 3 tumors, 67% (eight of 12); and grade 4 tumors, 91% (20 of 22). CONCLUSION Using a combination of minimum ADCs and ADC difference values (the two-parameter method) facilitates the accurate grading of astrocytic tumors.

[1]  K. Hoang-Xuan,et al.  Primary brain tumours in adults , 2003, The Lancet.

[2]  T. Hirai,et al.  Malignant supratentorial astrocytoma treated with postoperative radiation therapy: prognostic value of pretreatment quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging. , 2007, Radiology.

[3]  K. Kono,et al.  The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. , 2001, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[4]  P. Black,et al.  MEDICAL PROGRESS : BRAIN TUMORS (SECOND OF TWO PARTS) , 1991 .

[5]  S. Cha,et al.  Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[6]  R. Wolf.  Is There a Role for Diffusion-weighted Imaging in Patients with Brain Tumors or Is the ‘ ‘ Bloom off the Rose ’ ’ ? , 2001 .

[7]  C. Oppenheim,et al.  Spontaneous intracerebral hematoma on diffusion-weighted images: influence of T2-shine-through and T2-blackout effects. , 2005, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[8]  Susan M. Chang,et al.  Dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion imaging of high-grade gliomas: characterization of spatial heterogeneity. , 2005, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[9]  Daniel L. A. Camacho,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficients for differentiation of cerebellar tumors in children. , 2006, AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology.

[10]  J. Hanley,et al.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. , 1983, Radiology.

[11]  Daniel P Barboriak,et al.  Diffusion-weighted and perfusion MR imaging for brain tumor characterization and assessment of treatment response. , 2006, Radiology.

[12]  R D Tien,et al.  MR imaging of high-grade cerebral gliomas: value of diffusion-weighted echoplanar pulse sequences. , 1994, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[13]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[14]  M. Zweig,et al.  Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) plots: a fundamental evaluation tool in clinical medicine. , 1993, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  Toshinori Hirai,et al.  Usefulness of diffusion‐weighted MRI with echo‐planar technique in the evaluation of cellularity in gliomas , 1999, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[16]  C. Calli,et al.  Minimum apparent diffusion coefficients in the evaluation of brain tumors. , 2005, European journal of radiology.

[17]  T. Hirai,et al.  Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (adc) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas , 2008, Acta radiologica.

[18]  Isabelle Camby,et al.  Effect of hydrophilic components of the extracellular matrix on quantifiable diffusion-weighted imaging of human gliomas: preliminary results of correlating apparent diffusion coefficient values and hyaluronan expression level. , 2003, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[19]  Toshihiro Kumabe,et al.  Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. , 2006, Radiology.

[20]  R. Stollberger,et al.  Improved diffusion‐weighted single‐shot echo‐planar imaging (EPI) in stroke using sensitivity encoding (SENSE) , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[21]  M T Nieminen,et al.  Potential of diffusion imaging in brain tumors: a review , 2006, Acta radiologica.

[22]  Kaoru Kurisu,et al.  Apparent diffusion coefficient of human brain tumors at MR imaging. , 2005, Radiology.

[23]  S. Y. Kim,et al.  A Prospective Study on the Added Value of Pulsed Arterial Spin-Labeling and Apparent Diffusion Coefficients in the Grading of Gliomas , 2007, American Journal of Neuroradiology.

[24]  R. Gonzalez,et al.  MRI in treatment of adult gliomas. , 2005, The Lancet. Oncology.