Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Background Glioma grading is a critical procedure for selecting the most effective treatment policy. Biopsy result is the gold standard method for glioma grading, but inherent sampling errors in the biopsy procedure could lead to tumor misclassification. Aim This study evaluated grading performances of a more comprehensive collection of the physiological indices quantified using an optimized dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) paradigm for glioma grading. Methods Thirty-five patients with glioma underwent DCE-MR imaging to evaluate the grading performances of DCE-MRI-derived physiological indices. The statistical differences in the physiological indices between the different grades of gliomas were studied, and the grading performances of these parameters were evaluated using the leave-one-out cross-validation method. Results There were significant statistical differences in DCE-MRI-derived physiological indices between the different grades of gliomas. The mean rCBVs for grade II (low-grade glioma, LGG), grade III, grade IV, and high-grade (HGG) gliomas were 2.03 ± 0.78, 3.61 ± 1.64, 7.14 ± 3.19, and 5.28 ± 3.02, respectively. The mean rCBFs of 1.94 ± 0.97, 2.67 ± 0.96, 4.57 ± 1.77, and 3.57 ± 1.68 were, respectively, quantified for grade II (LGG), grade III, grade IV, and high-grade gliomas. The leave-one-out cross-validation method indicates that the grades of glioma tumors could be determined based on a specific threshold for each physiological index; for example, the optimal cutoff values for rCBF, rCBV, Ktrans, Kep, and Vp indices to distinguish between HGGs and LGGs were 2.11, 2.80, 0.025 mL/g min, 0.29 min−1, and 0.065 mL/g, respectively. Conclusions From the results, it could be concluded that glioma grades could be determined using DCE-MRI-derived physiological indices with an acceptable agreement with histopathological results.
Background Glioma grading is a critical procedure for selecting the most effective treatment policy. Biopsy result is the gold standard method for glioma grading, but inherent sampling errors in the biopsy procedure could lead to tumor misclassification. Aim This study evaluated grading performances of a more comprehensive collection of the physiological indices quantified using an optimized dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) paradigm for glioma grading. Methods Thirty-five patients with glioma underwent DCE-MR imaging to evaluate the grading performances of DCE-MRI-derived physiological indices. The statistical differences in the physiological indices between the different grades of gliomas were studied, and the grading performances of these parameters were evaluated using the leave-one-out cross-validation method. Results There were significant statistical differences in DCE-MRI-derived physiological indices between the different grades of gliomas. The mean rCBVs for grade II (low-grade glioma, LGG), grade III, grade IV, and high-grade (HGG) gliomas were 2.03 ± 0.78, 3.61 ± 1.64, 7.14 ± 3.19, and 5.28 ± 3.02, respectively. The mean rCBFs of 1.94 ± 0.97, 2.67 ± 0.96, 4.57 ± 1.77, and 3.57 ± 1.68 were, respectively, quantified for grade II (LGG), grade III, grade IV, and high-grade gliomas. The leave-one-out cross-validation method indicates that the grades of glioma tumors could be determined based on a specific threshold for each physiological index; for example, the optimal cutoff values for rCBF, rCBV, Ktrans, Kep, and Vp indices to distinguish between HGGs and LGGs were 2.11, 2.80, 0.025 mL/g min, 0.29 min−1, and 0.065 mL/g, respectively. Conclusions From the results, it could be concluded that glioma grades could be determined using DCE-MRI-derived physiological indices with an acceptable agreement with histopathological results.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.