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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cho, Nicholas S., Hagiwara, Akifumi, Sanvito, Francesco, Ellingson, Benjamin M.
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