La Clinica terapeutica · 2024
Comparison of two region-of-interest placement methods for histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps for glioma grading.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hieu N D, Hung N D, Hung N D, Hien M M, Anh D V, Dung L T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: We assessed the value of histogram analysis (HA) of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps for grading low-grade (LGG) and high-grade (HGG) gliomas.
METHODS: We compared the diagnostic performance of two region-of-interest (ROI) placement methods (ROI 1: the entire tumor; ROI 2: the tumor excluding cystic and necrotic portions). We retrospectively evaluated 54 patients with supratentorial gliomas (18 LGG and 36 HGG). All subjects underwent standard 3T contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Histogram parameters of ADC maps calculated with the two segmentation methods comprised mean, median, maxi-mum, minimum, kurtosis, skewness, entropy, standard deviation (sd), mean of positive pixels (mpp), uniformity of positive pixels, and their ratios (r) between lesion and normal white matter. They were compared using the independent t-test, chi-square test, or Mann-Whitney U test. For statistically significant results, receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the optimal cutoff value, sensitivity, and specificity were determined by maximizing Youden's index.
RESULTS: The ROI 1 method resulted in significantly higher rADC mean, rADC median, and rADC mpp for LGG than for HGG; these parameters had value for predicting the histological glioma grade with a cutoff (sensitivity, specificity) of 1.88 (77.8%, 61.1%), 2.25 (44.4%, 97.2%), and 1.88 (77.8%, 63.9%), respectively. The ROI 2 method resulted in significantly higher ADC mean, ADC median, ADC mpp, ADC sd, ADC max, rADC median, rADC mpp, rADC mean, rADC sd, and rADC max for LGG than for HGG, while skewness was lower for LGG than for HGG (0.27 [0.98] vs 0.91 [0.81], p = 0.014). In ROI 2, ADC median, ADC mpp, ADC mean, rADC median, rADC mpp, and rADC mean performed well in differentiating glioma grade with cutoffs (sensitivity, specificity) of 1.28 (77.8%, 88.9%), 1.28 (77.8%, 88.9%), 1.25 (77.8%, 91.7%), 1.81 (83.3%, 91.7%), 1.74 (83.3%, 91.7%), and 1.81 (83.3%, 91.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: HA parameters had value for grading gliomas. Ex-cluding cystic and necrotic portions of the tumor for measuring HA parameters was preferable to using the entire tumor as the ROI. In this segmentation, rADC median showed the highest performance in predicting histological glioma grade, followed by rADC mpp, rADC mean, ADC median, ADC mpp, and ADC mean.
METHODS: We compared the diagnostic performance of two region-of-interest (ROI) placement methods (ROI 1: the entire tumor; ROI 2: the tumor excluding cystic and necrotic portions). We retrospectively evaluated 54 patients with supratentorial gliomas (18 LGG and 36 HGG). All subjects underwent standard 3T contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Histogram parameters of ADC maps calculated with the two segmentation methods comprised mean, median, maxi-mum, minimum, kurtosis, skewness, entropy, standard deviation (sd), mean of positive pixels (mpp), uniformity of positive pixels, and their ratios (r) between lesion and normal white matter. They were compared using the independent t-test, chi-square test, or Mann-Whitney U test. For statistically significant results, receiver operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the optimal cutoff value, sensitivity, and specificity were determined by maximizing Youden's index.
RESULTS: The ROI 1 method resulted in significantly higher rADC mean, rADC median, and rADC mpp for LGG than for HGG; these parameters had value for predicting the histological glioma grade with a cutoff (sensitivity, specificity) of 1.88 (77.8%, 61.1%), 2.25 (44.4%, 97.2%), and 1.88 (77.8%, 63.9%), respectively. The ROI 2 method resulted in significantly higher ADC mean, ADC median, ADC mpp, ADC sd, ADC max, rADC median, rADC mpp, rADC mean, rADC sd, and rADC max for LGG than for HGG, while skewness was lower for LGG than for HGG (0.27 [0.98] vs 0.91 [0.81], p = 0.014). In ROI 2, ADC median, ADC mpp, ADC mean, rADC median, rADC mpp, and rADC mean performed well in differentiating glioma grade with cutoffs (sensitivity, specificity) of 1.28 (77.8%, 88.9%), 1.28 (77.8%, 88.9%), 1.25 (77.8%, 91.7%), 1.81 (83.3%, 91.7%), 1.74 (83.3%, 91.7%), and 1.81 (83.3%, 91.7%), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: HA parameters had value for grading gliomas. Ex-cluding cystic and necrotic portions of the tumor for measuring HA parameters was preferable to using the entire tumor as the ROI. In this segmentation, rADC median showed the highest performance in predicting histological glioma grade, followed by rADC mpp, rADC mean, ADC median, ADC mpp, and ADC mean.