Cargando…
A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors
PURPOSE: There remains no consensus normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) normalization method to compute normalized relative cerebral blood volume (nrCBV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (nADC) in brain tumors. This reader study explored nrCBV and nADC differences using different NAWM normalizati...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9905164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36301349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03072-y |
_version_ | 1784883774978260992 |
---|---|
author | Cho, Nicholas S. Hagiwara, Akifumi Sanvito, Francesco Ellingson, Benjamin M. |
author_facet | Cho, Nicholas S. Hagiwara, Akifumi Sanvito, Francesco Ellingson, Benjamin M. |
author_sort | Cho, Nicholas S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: There remains no consensus normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) normalization method to compute normalized relative cerebral blood volume (nrCBV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (nADC) in brain tumors. This reader study explored nrCBV and nADC differences using different NAWM normalization methods. METHODS: Thirty-five newly diagnosed glioma patients were studied. For each patient, two readers created four NAWM regions of interests: (1) a single plane in the centrum semiovale (CSOp), (2) 3 spheres in the centrum semiovale (CSOs), (3) a single plane in the slice of the tumor center (TUMp), and (4) 3 spheres in the slice of the tumor center (TUMs). Readers repeated NAWM segmentations 1 month later. Differences in nrCBV and nADC of the FLAIR hyperintense tumor, inter-/intra-reader variability, and time to segment NAWM were assessed. As a validation step, the diagnostic performance of each method for IDH-status prediction was evaluated. RESULTS: Both readers obtained significantly different nrCBV (P < .001), nADC (P < .001), and time to segment NAWM (P < .001) between the four normalization methods. nrCBV and nADC were significantly different between CSO and TUM methods, but not between planar and spherical methods in the same NAWM region. Broadly, CSO methods were quicker than TUM methods, and spherical methods were quicker than planar methods. For all normalization techniques, inter-reader reproducibility and intra-reader repeatability were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9), and the IDH-status predictive performance remained similar. CONCLUSION: The selected NAWM region significantly impacts nrCBV and nADC values. CSO methods, particularly CSOs, may be preferred because of time reduction, similar reader variability, and similar diagnostic performance compared to TUM methods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00234-022-03072-y. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9905164 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-99051642023-02-08 A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors Cho, Nicholas S. Hagiwara, Akifumi Sanvito, Francesco Ellingson, Benjamin M. Neuroradiology Functional Neuroradiology PURPOSE: There remains no consensus normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) normalization method to compute normalized relative cerebral blood volume (nrCBV) and apparent diffusion coefficient (nADC) in brain tumors. This reader study explored nrCBV and nADC differences using different NAWM normalization methods. METHODS: Thirty-five newly diagnosed glioma patients were studied. For each patient, two readers created four NAWM regions of interests: (1) a single plane in the centrum semiovale (CSOp), (2) 3 spheres in the centrum semiovale (CSOs), (3) a single plane in the slice of the tumor center (TUMp), and (4) 3 spheres in the slice of the tumor center (TUMs). Readers repeated NAWM segmentations 1 month later. Differences in nrCBV and nADC of the FLAIR hyperintense tumor, inter-/intra-reader variability, and time to segment NAWM were assessed. As a validation step, the diagnostic performance of each method for IDH-status prediction was evaluated. RESULTS: Both readers obtained significantly different nrCBV (P < .001), nADC (P < .001), and time to segment NAWM (P < .001) between the four normalization methods. nrCBV and nADC were significantly different between CSO and TUM methods, but not between planar and spherical methods in the same NAWM region. Broadly, CSO methods were quicker than TUM methods, and spherical methods were quicker than planar methods. For all normalization techniques, inter-reader reproducibility and intra-reader repeatability were excellent (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9), and the IDH-status predictive performance remained similar. CONCLUSION: The selected NAWM region significantly impacts nrCBV and nADC values. CSO methods, particularly CSOs, may be preferred because of time reduction, similar reader variability, and similar diagnostic performance compared to TUM methods. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00234-022-03072-y. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2022-10-27 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC9905164/ /pubmed/36301349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03072-y Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Functional Neuroradiology Cho, Nicholas S. Hagiwara, Akifumi Sanvito, Francesco Ellingson, Benjamin M. A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors |
title | A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors |
title_full | A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors |
title_fullStr | A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors |
title_full_unstemmed | A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors |
title_short | A multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion MRI in brain tumors |
title_sort | multi-reader comparison of normal-appearing white matter normalization techniques for perfusion and diffusion mri in brain tumors |
topic | Functional Neuroradiology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9905164/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36301349 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-03072-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chonicholass amultireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT hagiwaraakifumi amultireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT sanvitofrancesco amultireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT ellingsonbenjaminm amultireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT chonicholass multireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT hagiwaraakifumi multireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT sanvitofrancesco multireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors AT ellingsonbenjaminm multireadercomparisonofnormalappearingwhitematternormalizationtechniquesforperfusionanddiffusionmriinbraintumors |