Article

Combined use of neuroradiology and 1H-MR spectroscopy may provide an intervention limiting diagnosis of glioblastoma multiforme.

Academic Neurosurgery Unit, St George's University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (Impact Factor: 2.57). 11/2010; 32(5):1038-44. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.22350
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the accuracy of (1)H-MR spectroscopy ((1)H-MRS) as an intervention limiting diagnostic tool for glioblastoma multiforme. GBM is the most common and aggressive primary brain tumor, with mean survival under a year. Oncological practice currently requires histopathological diagnosis before radiotherapy.
Eighty-nine patients had clinical computed tomography (CT) and MR imaging and 1.5T SV SE (1)H-MRS with PRESS localization for neuroradiological diagnosis and tumor classification with spectroscopic and automated pattern recognition analysis (TE 30 ms, TR 2000 ms, spectral width 2500 Hz and 2048 data points, 128-256 signal averages were acquired, depending on voxel size (8 cm(3) to 4 cm(3)). Eighteen patients from a cohort of 89 underwent stereotactic biopsy.
The 18 stereotactic biopsies revealed 14 GBM, 2 grade II astrocytomas, 1 lymphoma, and 1 anaplastic astrocytoma. All 14 biopsied GBMs were diagnosed as GBM by a protocol combining an individual radiologist and an automated spectral pattern recognition program.
In patients undergoing stereotactic biopsy combined neuroradiological and spectroscopic evaluation diagnoses GBM with accuracy that could replace the need for biopsy. We do not advocate the replacement of biopsy in all patients; instead our data suggest a specific intervention limiting role for the use of (1)H-MRS in brain tumor diagnosis.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
91 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Imaging is a key component in the management of brain tumours, with MRI being the preferred modality for most clinical scenarios. However, although conventional MRI provides mainly structural information, such as tumour size and location, it leaves many important clinical questions, such as tumour type, aggressiveness and prognosis, unanswered. An increasing number of studies have shown that additional information can be obtained using functional imaging methods (which probe tissue properties), and that these techniques can give key information of clinical importance. These techniques include diffusion imaging, which can assess tissue structure, and perfusion imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy, which measures tissue metabolite profiles. Tumour metabolism can also be investigated using PET, with 18F-deoxyglucose being the most readily available tracer. This Review discusses these methods and the studies that have investigated their clinical use. A strong emphasis is placed on the measurement of quantitative parameters, which is a move away from the qualitative nature of conventional radiological reporting and presents major challenges, particularly for multicentre studies.
    Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 11/2012; · 15.03 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In a previous study, we have shown the added value of 1H MRS for the neuroradiological characterisation of adult human brain tumours. In that study, several methods of MRS analysis were used, and a software program, the International Network for Pattern Recognition of Tumours Using Magnetic Resonance Decision Support System 1.0 (INTERPRET DSS 1.0), with a short-TE classifier, provided the best results. Since then, the DSS evolved into a version 2.0 that contains an additional long-TE classifier. This study has two objectives. First, to determine whether clinicians with no experience of spectroscopy are comparable with spectroscopists in the use of the system, when only minimum training in the use of the system was given. Second, to assess whether or not a version with another TE is better than the initial version. We undertook a second study with the same cases and nine evaluators to assess whether the diagnostic accuracy of DSS 2.0 was comparable with the values obtained with DSS 1.0. In the second study, the analysis protocol was flexible in comparison with the first one to mimic a clinical environment. In the present study, on average, each case required 5.4 min by neuroradiologists and 9 min by spectroscopists for evaluation. Most classes and superclasses of tumours gave the same results as with DSS 1.0, except for astrocytomas of World Health Organization (WHO) grade III, in which performance measured as the area under the curve (AUC) decreased: AUC = 0.87 (0.72–1.02) with DSS 1.0 and AUC = 0.62 (0.55–0.70) with DSS 2.0. When analysing the performance of radiologists and spectroscopists with respect to DSS 1.0, the results were the same for most classes. Having data with two TEs instead of one did not affect the results of the evaluation. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    NMR in Biomedicine 07/2014; · 3.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management and treatment of high-grade glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and solitary metastasis (MET) are very different and influence the prognosis and subsequent clinical outcomes. In the case of a solitary MET, diagnosis using conventional radiology can be equivocal. Currently, a definitive diagnosis is based on histopathological analysis on a biopsy sample. Here, we present a computerised decision support framework for discrimination between GBM and solitary MET using MRI, which includes: (i) a semi-automatic segmentation method based on diffusion tensor imaging; (ii) two-dimensional morphological feature extraction and selection; and (iii) a pattern recognition module for automated tumour classification. Ground truth was provided by histopathological analysis from pre-treatment stereotactic biopsy or at surgical resection. Our two-dimensional morphological analysis outperforms previous methods with high cross-validation accuracy of 97.9% and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.975 using a neural networks-based classifier. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    NMR in Biomedicine 07/2014; · 3.45 Impact Factor