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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |