首页> 外文期刊>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging: JMRI >Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy evaluation of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in treated high‐grade gliomas
【24h】

Prospective comparative diagnostic accuracy evaluation of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) MR perfusion in differentiating tumor recurrence from radiation necrosis in treated high‐grade gliomas

机译:动态对比增强(DCE)对比诊断准确性评价(DCE)对比(DSC)MR灌注在治疗高级胶质瘤治疗辐射坏死中的肿瘤复发

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

Background The appearance of a new enhancing lesion after surgery and chemoradiation for high‐grade glioma (HGG) presents a common diagnostic dilemma. Histopathological analysis remains the reference standard in this situation. Purpose To prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy of dynamic contrast‐enhanced (DCE) vs. dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) in differentiating tumor recurrence (TR) from radiation necrosis (RN). Study Type Prospective diagnostic accuracy study. Population In all, 98 consecutive treated HGG patients with new enhancing lesion. We excluded 32 patients due to inadequate follow‐up or technical limitation. Field Strength/Sequence 3 T DCE and DSC MR. Assessment Histogram and hot‐spot analysis of cerebral blood volume (CBV), corrected CBV, K trans , area under the curve (AUC), and plasma volume (Vp). The reference standard of TR and/or RN was determined by histopathology in 43 surgically resected lesions or by clinical/imaging follow‐up in the rest. Statistical Tests Mann–Whitney U ‐tests, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, and logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 68 lesions were included. There were 37 TR, 28 RN, and three lesions with equal proportions of TR and RN. TR had significantly higher CBV, corrected CBV, CBV ratio, corrected CBV ratio, AUC ratio, and Vp ratio ( P 0.05) than RN on hot‐spot analysis. CBV had the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUROC 0.71). On histogram analysis, TR had higher CBV and corrected CBV maximal value compared with RN ( P = 0.006, AUROC = 0.70). Only CBV on hot‐spot analysis remained significant after correction for multiple comparison, with no significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy when using a combination of parameters (AUROC 0.71 vs. 0.76, P = 0.24). Data Conclusion DSC‐derived CBV is the most accurate perfusion parameter in differentiating TR and RN. DSC and DCE‐derived parameters reflecting the blood volume in an enhancing lesion are more accurate than the DCE‐derived parameter K trans . Clinical practice may be best guided by blood volume measurements, rather than permeability assessment for differentiation of TR from RN. Level of Evidence : 1 Technical Efficacy Stage : 4 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:573–582.
机译:背景技术在手术和高级胶质瘤(HGG)的手术和化学地理后新增的增强病变具有常见的诊断困境。组织病理学分析仍然是这种情况的参考标准。目的要预先比较动态对比增强(DCE)与动态敏感性对比(DSC)的诊断准确性在分化肿瘤复发(TR)中的辐射坏死(RN)。研究类型预期诊断准确性研究。人口全部,98名连续治疗的HGG患者新增的病变。由于跟进或技术限制不足,我们排除了32名患者。场强/序列3 T DCE和DSC MR。评估脑血容量(CBV),校正CBV,K反式,曲线(AUC)和等离子体体积(VP)的校正CBV,K反式区域的评估直方图和热点分析。 TR和/或RN的参考标准由43例手术切除病变中的组织病理学确定或通过其余的临床/成像随访。统计测试Mann-Whitney U -Tests,接收器操作特征(ROC)曲线,以及逻辑回归分析。结果总共包括68个病变。具有37 Tr,28 rn和三个病变,具有相同的Tr和Rn。在热点分析上,TR具有显着越来越高的CBV,校正的CBV,CBV比,校正的CBV比,抗杆比率,VP比(P <0.05)。 CBV具有最高的诊断精度(AUTOC 0.71)。在直方图分析上,与RN相比,TR具有更高的CBV和校正的CBV最大值(P = 0.006,Auroc = 0.70)。在校正后,只有CBV仍然存在显着的比较,在使用参数的组合(AuCOC 0.71对0.76,P = 0.24)时,诊断准确性没有显着提高。数据结论DSC衍生的CBV是区分TR和RN中最精确的灌注参数。 DSC和DCE衍生的参数反映增强病变中的血容量比DCE衍生的参数k变频更加精确。临床实践可以最好地被血液体积测量引导,而不是用于从RN的TR分化的渗透性评估。证据级别:1技术疗效阶段:4 J. MANG。恢复。 2019年成像; 50:573-582。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号