Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

High-grade gliomas (HGGs) and brain metastases (BMs) can display similar imaging characteristics on conventional MRI. In HGGs, the peritumoral edema may be infiltrated by the malignant cells, which was not observed in BMs.

Purpose

To determine whether the apparent diffusion coefficient values could differentiate HGGs from BMs.

Material and Methods

Fifty-seven patients underwent conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) before treatment. The minimum and mean ADC in the enhancing tumor (ADC_min, ADC_mean) and the minimum ADC in the peritumoral region (ADC_edema) were measured from ADC maps. To determine whether there was a statistical difference between groups, ADC values were compared. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine the cutoff ADC value for distinguishing between HGGs and BMs.

Results

The mean ADC_min values in the intratumoral regions of HGGs were significantly higher than those in BMs. No differences were observed between groups regarding ADC_mean values. The mean ADC_min values in the peritumoral edema of HGGs were significantly lower than those in BMs. According to ROC curve analysis, a cutoff value of 1.332 × 10⁻³mm²/s for the ADC_edema generated the best combination of sensitivity (95%) and specificity (84%) for distinguishing between HGGs and BMs. The same value showed a sensitivity of 95.6% and a specificity of 100% for distinguishing between GBMs and BMs.

Conclusion

ADC values from DWI were found to distinguish between HGGs and solitary BMs. The peritumoral ADC values are better than the intratumoral ADC values in predicting the tumor type.

Keywords

Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)high-grade glioma brain metastasis peritumoral edema

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ostrom

Bauchet

Davis

et al.

The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a “state of the science” review. Neuro Oncol 2014; 16: 896–913.

Louis

Ohgaki

Wiestler

et al.

The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007; 114: 97–109.

Patchell

. Brain metastases. Neurol Clin 1991; 9: 817–827.

Cha

Aiken

et al.

Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficients and T2 relaxation times in characterizing contrast enhancing brain tumors and regions of peritumoral edema. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 21: 701–708.

Chen

Liu

Bao

et al.

The correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor cellularity in patients: a meta-analysis. PLoS One 2013; 8: e79008–e79008.

Surov

Ginat

Sanverdi

et al.

Use of diffusion weighted imaging in differentiating between malignant and benign meningiomas. A multicenter analysis. World Neurosurg 2016; 88: 598–602.

Kono

Inoue

Nakayama

et al.

The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 22: 1081–1088.

Svolos

Tsolaki

Kapsalaki

et al.

Investigating brain tumor differentiation with diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3T MRI using pattern recognition techniques. Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 31: 1567–1577.

Fan

Deng

et al.

Usefulness of diffusion/perfusion-weighted MRI in patients with non-enhancing supratentorial brain gliomas: a valuable tool to predict tumour grading?

Br J Radiol 2006; 79: 652–658.

10.

Hong

et al.

Radiological indeterminate vestibular schwannoma and meningioma in cerebellopontine angle area: differentiating using whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient. Int J Neurosci 2016; 127: 183–190.

11.

Stadnik

Chaskis

Michotte

et al.

Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of intracerebral masses: comparison with conventional MR imaging and histologic findings. Am J Neuroradiol 2001; 22: 969–976.

12.

Kitis

Altay

Calli

et al.

Minimum apparent diffusion coefficients in the evaluation of brain tumors. Eur J Radiol 2005; 55: 393–400.

13.

Yamasaki

Kurisu

Satoh

et al.

Apparent diffusion coefficient of human brain tumors at MR imaging. Radiology 2005; 235: 985–991.

14.

Rollin

Guyotat

Streichenberger

et al.

Clinical relevance of diffusion and perfusion magnetic resonance imaging in assessing intra-axial brain tumors. Neuroradiology 2006; 48: 150–159.

15.

Lee

terBrugge

Mikulis

et al.

Diagnostic value of peritumoral minimum apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from solitary metastatic lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2011; 196: 71–76.

16.

Han

Huang

Guo

et al.

Use of a high b-value for diffusion weighted imaging of peritumoral regions to differentiate high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 42: 80–86.

17.

Chiang

Kuo

et al.

Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imagings. Neuroradiology 2004; 46: 619–627.

18.

Krabbe

Gideon

Wagn

et al.

MR diffusion imaging of human intracranial tumors. Neuroradiology 1997; 39: 483–489.

19.

Server

Kulle

Maehlen

et al.

Quantitative apparent diffusion coefficients in the characterization of brain tumors and associated peritumoral edema. Acta Radiol 2009; 50: 682–689.

20.

Tsougos

Svolos

Kousi

et al.

Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme from metastatic brain tumor using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion and perfusion metrics at 3 T. Cancer Imaging 2012; 12: 423–436.

21.

Pope

Mirsadraei

Lai

et al.

Differential gene expression in glioblastoma defined by ADC histogram analysis: relationship to extracellular matrix molecules and survival. Am J Neuroradiol 2012; 33: 1059–1064.

22.

Cha

. Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 475–487.

23.

Bertossi

Virgintino

Maiorano

et al.

Ultrastructural and morphometric investigation of human brain capillaries in normal and peritumoral tissues. Ultrastruct Pathol 1997; 21: 41–49.

24.

Pavlisa

Rados

Pavic

et al.

The differences of water diffusion between brain tissue infiltrated by tumor and peritumoral vasogenic edema. Clin Imaging 2009; 33: 96–101.

25.

Belli

Busoni

Ciccarone

et al.

Quality assurance multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 43: 213–219.

26.

Server

Josefsen

Kulle

et al.

Proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy in the distinction of high-grade cerebral gliomas from single metastatic brain tumors. Acta Radiol 2010; 51: 316–325.

27.

Wang

Kim

Chawla

et al.

Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 507–514.

28.

Blystad

Warntjes

JBM

Smedby

et al.

Quantitative MRI for analysis of peritumoral edema in malignant gliomas. PLoS One 2017; 12: e0177135–e0177135.

Diagnostic value of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating between high-grade gliomas and brain metastases

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References