Cargando…

Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading

To compare the efficacy of ultra-high and conventional mono-b-value DWI for glioma grading, in 109 pathologically confirmed glioma patients, ultra-high apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC(uh))was calculated using a tri-exponential mode, distributed diffusion coefficients (DDCs) and α values were cal...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hu, Yu-Chuan, Yan, Lin-Feng, Sun, Qian, Liu, Zhi-Cheng, Wang, Shu-Mei, Han, Yu, Tian, Qiang, Sun, Ying-Zhi, Zheng, Dan-Dan, Wang, Wen, Cui, Guang-Bin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Impact Journals LLC 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28039453
http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14180
_version_ 1783250919795720192
author Hu, Yu-Chuan
Yan, Lin-Feng
Sun, Qian
Liu, Zhi-Cheng
Wang, Shu-Mei
Han, Yu
Tian, Qiang
Sun, Ying-Zhi
Zheng, Dan-Dan
Wang, Wen
Cui, Guang-Bin
author_facet Hu, Yu-Chuan
Yan, Lin-Feng
Sun, Qian
Liu, Zhi-Cheng
Wang, Shu-Mei
Han, Yu
Tian, Qiang
Sun, Ying-Zhi
Zheng, Dan-Dan
Wang, Wen
Cui, Guang-Bin
author_sort Hu, Yu-Chuan
collection PubMed
description To compare the efficacy of ultra-high and conventional mono-b-value DWI for glioma grading, in 109 pathologically confirmed glioma patients, ultra-high apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC(uh))was calculated using a tri-exponential mode, distributed diffusion coefficients (DDCs) and α values were calculated using a stretched-exponential model, and conventional ADC values were calculated using a mono-exponential model. The efficacy and reliability of parameters for grading gliomas were investigated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and intra-class correlation (ICC) analyses, respectively. The ADC(uh) values differed (P < 0.001) between low-grade gliomas (LGGs; 0.436 ×10(−3) mm(2)/sec) and high-grade gliomas (HGGs; 0.285 × 10(−3) mm(2)/sec). DDC, a and various conventional ADC values were smaller in HGGs (all P ≤ 0.001, vs. LGGs). The ADC(uh) parameter achieved the highest diagnostic efficacy with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.993, 92.9% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity for glioma grading at a cutoff value of 0.362×10(−3) mm(2)/sec. ADC(uh) measurement appears to be an easy-to-perform technique with good reproducibility (ICC = 0.9391, P < 0.001). The ADC(uh) value based in a tri-exponential model exhibited greater efficacy and reliability than other DWI parameters, making it a promising technique for glioma grading.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5514959
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Impact Journals LLC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55149592017-07-24 Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading Hu, Yu-Chuan Yan, Lin-Feng Sun, Qian Liu, Zhi-Cheng Wang, Shu-Mei Han, Yu Tian, Qiang Sun, Ying-Zhi Zheng, Dan-Dan Wang, Wen Cui, Guang-Bin Oncotarget Clinical Research Paper To compare the efficacy of ultra-high and conventional mono-b-value DWI for glioma grading, in 109 pathologically confirmed glioma patients, ultra-high apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC(uh))was calculated using a tri-exponential mode, distributed diffusion coefficients (DDCs) and α values were calculated using a stretched-exponential model, and conventional ADC values were calculated using a mono-exponential model. The efficacy and reliability of parameters for grading gliomas were investigated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and intra-class correlation (ICC) analyses, respectively. The ADC(uh) values differed (P < 0.001) between low-grade gliomas (LGGs; 0.436 ×10(−3) mm(2)/sec) and high-grade gliomas (HGGs; 0.285 × 10(−3) mm(2)/sec). DDC, a and various conventional ADC values were smaller in HGGs (all P ≤ 0.001, vs. LGGs). The ADC(uh) parameter achieved the highest diagnostic efficacy with an area under curve (AUC) of 0.993, 92.9% sensitivity and 98.8% specificity for glioma grading at a cutoff value of 0.362×10(−3) mm(2)/sec. ADC(uh) measurement appears to be an easy-to-perform technique with good reproducibility (ICC = 0.9391, P < 0.001). The ADC(uh) value based in a tri-exponential model exhibited greater efficacy and reliability than other DWI parameters, making it a promising technique for glioma grading. Impact Journals LLC 2016-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5514959/ /pubmed/28039453 http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14180 Text en Copyright: © 2017 Hu et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/) (CC-BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Clinical Research Paper
Hu, Yu-Chuan
Yan, Lin-Feng
Sun, Qian
Liu, Zhi-Cheng
Wang, Shu-Mei
Han, Yu
Tian, Qiang
Sun, Ying-Zhi
Zheng, Dan-Dan
Wang, Wen
Cui, Guang-Bin
Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading
title Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading
title_full Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading
title_fullStr Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading
title_full_unstemmed Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading
title_short Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading
title_sort comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value dwi for preoperative glioma grading
topic Clinical Research Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5514959/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28039453
http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.14180
work_keys_str_mv AT huyuchuan comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT yanlinfeng comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT sunqian comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT liuzhicheng comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT wangshumei comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT hanyu comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT tianqiang comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT sunyingzhi comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT zhengdandan comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT wangwen comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading
AT cuiguangbin comparisonbetweenultrahighandconventionalmonobvaluedwiforpreoperativegliomagrading