Distinguishing glioblastoma progression from treatment-related changes using DTI directionality growth analysis.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neuroradiology Pub Date : 2024-08-17 DOI:10.1007/s00234-024-03450-8
R van den Elshout, B Ariëns, M Esmaeili, B Akkurt, M Mannil, F J A Meijer, A G van der Kolk, T W J Scheenen, D Henssen
{"title":"Distinguishing glioblastoma progression from treatment-related changes using DTI directionality growth analysis.","authors":"R van den Elshout, B Ariëns, M Esmaeili, B Akkurt, M Mannil, F J A Meijer, A G van der Kolk, T W J Scheenen, D Henssen","doi":"10.1007/s00234-024-03450-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is difficult to distinguish between tumor progression (TP) and treatment-related abnormalities (TRA) in treated glioblastoma patients via conventional MRI, but this distinction is crucial for treatment decision making. Glioblastoma is known to exhibit an invasive growth pattern along white matter architecture and vasculature. This study quantified lesion development patterns in treated glioblastoma lesions and their relation to white matter microstructure to distinguish TP from TRA.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Glioblastoma patients with confirmed TP or TRA with T1-weighted contrast-enhanced and DTI MR scans from two posttreatment follow-up timepoints were reviewed. The contrast-enhancing regions were segmented, and the regions were coregistered to the DTI data. Lesion increase vectors were categorized into two groups: parallel (0-20 degrees) and perpendicular (70-90 degrees) to white matter. FA-values were also extracted. To test for a statistically significant difference between the TP and TRA groups, a Mann‒Whitney U test was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 73 glioblastoma patients, fifteen were diagnosed with TRA, whereas 58 patients suffered TP. TP had a 25.8% (95% CI 24.1%-27.6%) increase in parallel lesions, and TRA had a 25.4% (95% CI 20.9%-29.9%) increase in parallel lesions. The perpendicular increase was 14.7% for TP (95% CI 13.0%-16.4%) and 18.0% (95% CI 13.5%-22.5%) for TRA. These results were not significantly different (p = 0.978). FA value for TP showed to be 0.248 (SD = 0.054) and for TRA it was 0.231 (SD = 0.075), showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.121).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Based on our results, quantifying posttreatment contrast-enhancing lesion development directionality with DTI in glioblastoma patients does not appear to effectively distinguish between TP and TRA.</p>","PeriodicalId":19422,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-024-03450-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is difficult to distinguish between tumor progression (TP) and treatment-related abnormalities (TRA) in treated glioblastoma patients via conventional MRI, but this distinction is crucial for treatment decision making. Glioblastoma is known to exhibit an invasive growth pattern along white matter architecture and vasculature. This study quantified lesion development patterns in treated glioblastoma lesions and their relation to white matter microstructure to distinguish TP from TRA.

Materials and methods: Glioblastoma patients with confirmed TP or TRA with T1-weighted contrast-enhanced and DTI MR scans from two posttreatment follow-up timepoints were reviewed. The contrast-enhancing regions were segmented, and the regions were coregistered to the DTI data. Lesion increase vectors were categorized into two groups: parallel (0-20 degrees) and perpendicular (70-90 degrees) to white matter. FA-values were also extracted. To test for a statistically significant difference between the TP and TRA groups, a Mann‒Whitney U test was performed.

Results: Of 73 glioblastoma patients, fifteen were diagnosed with TRA, whereas 58 patients suffered TP. TP had a 25.8% (95% CI 24.1%-27.6%) increase in parallel lesions, and TRA had a 25.4% (95% CI 20.9%-29.9%) increase in parallel lesions. The perpendicular increase was 14.7% for TP (95% CI 13.0%-16.4%) and 18.0% (95% CI 13.5%-22.5%) for TRA. These results were not significantly different (p = 0.978). FA value for TP showed to be 0.248 (SD = 0.054) and for TRA it was 0.231 (SD = 0.075), showing no statistically significant difference (p = 0.121).

Conclusions: Based on our results, quantifying posttreatment contrast-enhancing lesion development directionality with DTI in glioblastoma patients does not appear to effectively distinguish between TP and TRA.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
利用 DTI 方向性增长分析区分胶质母细胞瘤进展与治疗相关变化
背景:在接受治疗的胶质母细胞瘤患者中,通过常规磁共振成像很难区分肿瘤进展(TP)和治疗相关异常(TRA),但这种区分对于治疗决策至关重要。众所周知,胶质母细胞瘤沿白质结构和血管呈浸润性生长模式。本研究量化了经治疗的胶质母细胞瘤病灶的病变发展模式及其与白质微结构的关系,以区分TP和TRA:对确诊为 TP 或 TRA 的胶质母细胞瘤患者进行复查,并对治疗后两个随访时间点的 T1 加权对比增强和 DTI MR 扫描进行复查。对对比增强区域进行分割,并将这些区域与 DTI 数据进行核心注册。病变增大矢量分为两组:与白质平行(0-20 度)和垂直(70-90 度)。同时还提取了 FA 值。为了检验 TP 组和 TRA 组之间是否存在显著的统计学差异,进行了 Mann-Whitney U 检验:73名胶质母细胞瘤患者中,15人被诊断为TRA,58人被诊断为TP。TP的平行病灶增加了25.8%(95% CI 24.1%-27.6%),TRA的平行病灶增加了25.4%(95% CI 20.9%-29.9%)。TP 的垂直增加率为 14.7%(95% CI 13.0%-16.4%),TRA 为 18.0%(95% CI 13.5%-22.5%)。这些结果没有明显差异(P = 0.978)。TP的FA值为0.248(SD = 0.054),TRA的FA值为0.231(SD = 0.075),差异无统计学意义(P = 0.121):根据我们的研究结果,用DTI量化胶质母细胞瘤患者治疗后对比增强病灶发展的方向性似乎不能有效区分TP和TRA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroradiology
Neuroradiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.60%
发文量
214
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroradiology aims to provide state-of-the-art medical and scientific information in the fields of Neuroradiology, Neurosciences, Neurology, Psychiatry, Neurosurgery, and related medical specialities. Neuroradiology as the official Journal of the European Society of Neuroradiology receives submissions from all parts of the world and publishes peer-reviewed original research, comprehensive reviews, educational papers, opinion papers, and short reports on exceptional clinical observations and new technical developments in the field of Neuroimaging and Neurointervention. The journal has subsections for Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Advanced Neuroimaging, Paediatric Neuroradiology, Head-Neck-ENT Radiology, Spine Neuroradiology, and for submissions from Japan. Neuroradiology aims to provide new knowledge about and insights into the function and pathology of the human nervous system that may help to better diagnose and treat nervous system diseases. Neuroradiology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the COPE core practices. Neuroradiology prefers articles that are free of bias, self-critical regarding limitations, transparent and clear in describing study participants, methods, and statistics, and short in presenting results. Before peer-review all submissions are automatically checked by iThenticate to assess for potential overlap in prior publication.
期刊最新文献
Machine learning based classification of spontaneous intracranial hemorrhages using radiomics features. Pineal gland ADC values in children aged 0 to 4 years: normative data and usefulness in the differential diagnosis with trilateral retinoblastoma. MR-Neurography of the facial nerve in parotid tumors: intra-parotid nerve visualization and surgical correlation. A Comparative Study of AI-Based Automated and Manual Postprocessing of Head and Neck CT Angiography: An Independent External Validation with Multi-Vendor and Multi-Center Data. CT-guided radiofrequency ablation of facial and mandibular nerves in the treatment of compound Meige's syndrome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1