MULTIMODAL MRI AND OVERALL DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY IN NON-ENHANCING BRAIN GLIOMAS
description
Transcript of MULTIMODAL MRI AND OVERALL DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY IN NON-ENHANCING BRAIN GLIOMAS
MULTIMODAL MRI AND OVERALL DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY IN NON-ENHANCING BRAIN
GLIOMAS
S. Gaudino, V. Lorusso, M. Caulo *, A. Tartaro *, T. Tartaglione, G.M. Di Lella, C. Colosimo
Dept. of Bio-imaging and Radiological Sciences, Policlinico “A. Gemelli” Catholic University of Rome – ITALY*ITAB - Istituto di Tecnologie Avanzate Biomediche,“G. d’Annunzio” University, Chieti-Pescara – ITALY
Introduction
Gliomas account for more than 70% of primary brain tumors and they present considerably heterogeneous neuropathological, genetic and clinical feature
WHO grade II and III gliomas represent a heterogeneous group of tumors, also regarding their potential of malignant transformation
With conventional MRI the assessment of gliomas grade may be limited, potentially affecting therapeutic decision making
Contrast enhancement reflects only disruption of the blood-brain-barrier (BBB) and not tumor angiogenesis
In fact 14-45% of non-enhancing supratentorial gliomas are malignant and 20% of low grade gliomas enhance after gadolinium (e.g. pilocytic astrocytomas)
Introduction
These limits could be overcome by integrating morphological information with “functional” MR techniques
Diffusion WI: information on lesion cellular content Perfusion WI: degree of perfusion generally reflects
the degree of microvascularity or neovascularity (angiogenesis) of the tumoral lesion
MR Spectroscopy: information related to the metabolic aspects of the tumor
J Magn Reson Imaging (1999) 9:53–60 Neuroradiology (2008) 50:759–767Neuroradiology (2002) 44:371–381
Purpose
The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), perfusion weighted imaging (PWI) and magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to the diagnostic work-up of Non-Enhancing Gliomas (NEGs)
Materials and methods We reviewed MRI studies of 31 Patients with
histopathologically confirmed brain gliomas with no CE on MRI, collected from two Italian University Hospitals
Only 22 Pts who have not undergone chemotherapy or radiotherapy before MRI examination were included in the study (15 males, 7 females; age range 19 to 81 year; mean ages 46.6 years)
13 Patients were studied with a 1.5 T and 9 with a 3 T system, using pre-contrast conventional MRI and multi-planar post-Gd T1-w images
All pts underwent DWI (b 0-1000) and PWI (dynamic first-passage gadolinium-enhanced gradient-echo sequence)
12 pts underwent MRS (MV, TE 144)
Materials and methods Two neuroradiologists evaluated for each lesions: signal intensity,
margins, the presence of cysts, hemorrhage, edema ROI, varying from 20 mm2 to 60 mm2, were positioned in the area of
maximum and minimum signal intensity (SI) on T2-w images. In these area ADC values, rCBV and rMTT values were calculated. Minimum ADC value and highest rCBV values were also measured. Cho/Cr (area and height), Cho/NAA (area and height) , Lip/Cr (height), Lac/Cr (height) were measured in the focus of highest rCBV
rCBV, rMTT and ADC normalized between tumor and healthy tissue
Pts were divided in two group: LGG and HGG All data obtained were summarized as the mean ± standard deviation Statistical analysis: Student t-test, chi-squared test, ROC curves (SPSS
version 19, MedCalc v10.2)
Materials and methodsSampling areas
The highest (1) and lowest (2) area of signal intensity on T2 FSE axial image
The ADC value in these two areas The area of lowest ADC value (3)
The rCBV and rMTT values of areas 1, 2 and 3 and the values of highest CBV (and its relative MTT) within the lesion (4)
1 2
Signal intensity values
12
3
ADC values
1
23
4
CBV, MTT values
On the area 4 we calcolated Cho/Cr (area and height), Cho/NAA (area and height) , Lip/Cr (height), Lac/Cr (height)
Results-1Of 22 gliomas : 13 Astro: 9 WHO grade II, 4 WHO grade III 9 ODG: 8 WHO grade II, one WHO grade III
In total : 17 grade II and 5 grade III
Morphological assessment: SI was homogeneous in 10 pts (8grade II, two grade III), Margins were ill-defined in most of the gliomas (16/22),
edema was evident in 6 lesions Only one lesion showed cystic component and one
necrosis (both grade II)
Age Histology GradeSignal
Intensity Margin CystNecro
sisHemorrh
age Edema27 Astro II WHO L Homogen Ill-def 0 0 0 038 Astro II WHO L Homogen Well-def 0 0 0 071 Astro II WHO L Homogen Ill-def 0 0 0 033 Astro II WHO L Inhomogen Well-def YES 0 0 024 Astro II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 060 Astro II WHO L Homogen Ill-def 0 0 0 032 Astro II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 027 Astro II WHO L Homogen Well-def 0 0 0 019 Astro II WHO L Homogen Well-def 0 0 0 YES59 ODG II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 YES31 ODG II WHO L Inhomogen Well-def 0 0 0 060 ODG II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 029 ODG II WHO L Homogen Ill-def 0 0 0 YES62 ODG II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 068 ODG II WHO L Homogen Ill-def 0 0 0 YES70 ODG II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 YES 0 YES47 ODG II WHO L Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 039 Astro III WHO H Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 YES43 Astro III WHO H Homogen Ill-def 0 0 0 078 Astro III WHO H Inhomogen Ill-def 0 0 0 058 Astro III WHO H Homogen Well-def 0 0 0 039 ODG III WHO H Inhomogen Yes 0 0 0 0
Results-1
HistologyrCBV in Low T2
rCBV in High T2
rCBV in Low ADC
ADC in Low T2
Astro II WHO 0,48 0,48 0,48 1,31Astro II WHO 2,20 2,20 2,20 1,48Astro II WHO 1,00 1,00 1,00 1,14Astro II WHO 1,69 0,77 1,69 1,26Astro II WHO 2,06 0,74 2,06 1,12Astro II WHO 0,35 0,35 0,35 0,82Astro II WHO 1,40 1,06 1,44 1,00Astro II WHO 0,42 0,42 0,42 0,00Astro II WHO 0,67 0,67 0,67 1,60ODG II WHO 1,80 0,69 0,92 1,25ODG II WHO 1,30 1,05 1,14 1,50ODG II WHO 1,70 1,27 1,67 1,18ODG II WHO 1,06 0,97 1,06 1,35ODG II WHO 1,20 1,13 1,33 1,00ODG II WHO 0,13 0,32 0,13 2,00ODG II WHO 2,60 1,33 2,60 1,02ODG II WHO 0,61 0,70 0,65 1,17Astro III WHO 1,70 0,11 1,88 1,60Astro III WHO 1,14 1,14 1,14 0,88Astro III WHO 2,01 0,29 2,01 1,06Astro III WHO 4,26 4,26 4,26 1,06ODG III WHO 1,64 0,52 1,10 1,32
Average 1,43 0,98 1,37 1,18Average II WHO 1,22 0,90 1,17 1,24Average III WHO 2,15 1,26 2,08 1,03
The average rCBV was: in the areas of low T2 SI =1,42 In the areas of high T2 SI = 0.98 In the areas of low ADC =1,37
ADC values in areas of low T2 SI =1,18
grade II: rCBV low T2 SI =1,22 high T2 SI = 0,90 low ADC =1,17ADC= 1.24
grade III: rCBV low T2 SI =2,15 high T2 SI = 1,25 low ADC =2,08ADC= 1.03
Results-2Histology
Cho/Cr area
Cho/NAA area
Cho/Cr height
Cho/NAAheight Lip/Cr height
Lac/Cr height
Astro II WHO 1,39 1,44 1,31 1,52 0,07 0,05Astro II WHO 1,35 0,93 1,11 1,08 0,06 0,06Astro II WHO 3,25 4,73 4,20 1,36 4,20 Astro II WHO Astro II WHO Astro II WHO 2,14 1,39 1,56 1,29 0,08 0,04Astro II WHO 1,63 1,25 1,73 2,07 0,06 0,04Astro II WHO 3,24 2,14 2,49 2,59 0,15 0,03Astro II WHO 1,49 1,31 1,43 1,98 0,35 0,03ODG II WHO ODG II WHO ODG II WHO 1,65 0,82 1,25 1,40 0,07 0,05ODG II WHO ODG II WHO ODG II WHO 1,48 2,34 1,13 2,25 0,05 0,04ODG II WHO 3,14 3,17 2,05 3,93 0,69 0,02ODG II WHO 4,19 4,93 2,98 4,36 0,25 0,14Astro III WHO Astro III WHO Astro III WHO Astro III WHO 1,67 10,53 1,67 3,10 1,36 0,07ODG III WHO
Average 2,22 2,91 1,91 2,24 0,62 0,05Average II WHO 2,27 2,22 1,93 2,17 0,55 0,05Average III WHO 1,67 10,53 1,67 3,10 1,36 0,07
Results-3Between grade II and grade III gliomas The difference in age and gender is not statistically significant There are no significant differences for signal intensity, cysts, necrosis,
hemorrhages or edema There was a significant difference in rCBV between grade II and III
(comparing all gliomas grade II vs III, and between ODG II and Astro III) in the areas of low T2 and low ADC
When SI was inhomogeneous in 12/12 pts the lowest ADC value resulted in the area of low T2 SI
Regarding MRS: the only variable that gave a significant p was Cho/NAA (area) but only one subject was in the high grade group
GROUPSrCBV in T2 Low
rMTT in T2 Low
rCBV in T2 High
rMTT in T2 High
rCBV in Low ADC
rMTT in Low ADC
Astro II/ODG II 0,330897775 0,278399498 0,348170405 0,338972 0,45354292 0,289554
Grade II vs III 0,020814802 0,353588683 0,208954425 0,355797 0,024443249 0,354925
ODG II vs Astro III 0,067583759 0,467230475 0,234793326 0,382297 0,041047381 0,447417
Results-3
Criterion Sensitivity 95% CI Specificity 95% CI +LR -LR>1.06 * 100.00 48.0 - 100.0 47.06 23.0 - 72.1 1.89 0.00
Criterion Sensitivity 95% CI Specificity 95% CI +LR -LR>1.06 * 100.00 48.0 - 100.0 47.06 23.0 - 72.1 1.89 0.00
An high probability for a gliomas to be a high-grade lesion was associated with a rCBV tumor/normal tissue ratio of >1.89 both in low T2 SI and low ADC
Case-1M 33 ys
L-deep lesion. Inhomogeneous SI, well-defined margins, cystic component
DWI,PWI, MRS deponed for LGG
Astro II
Case-2M 44 ys
ODG II
L-frontal lesion. Inhomogeneous SI, necrosis, ill-defined margins
Areas of low ADCHigh rCBVNo MRS
Case-3M 70 ys
R-parietal lesion. Inhomogeneous SI, ill-defined margins, necrosisPWI MRS deposed for HGG
T2-Cho/Cr(A) T2-Cho/NAA(A)T2-Cho/Cr(H) T2-Cho/NAA(H) T2-Lip/Cr(H) T2-Lac/Cr(H)
3,136 3,166 2,046 3,930 0,690 0,022 ODG II
Astro grade II with foci of grade III
Case-4M 43 ys
Conclusions The lack of contrast enhancement on MR studies of brain
gliomas does not always couple with a low grade tumor, and up to 25% of HGG are faintly or completely non-enhancing
Accurate tumor grading is essential for a rational therapeutic approach
In conventional MR imaging, reported values for accurate grading of gliomas varies from 55% to 83.3%*
DWI, PWI, and MRS provide useful data for tumor evaluation and grading
Neuroradiology (1994) 36:308–310
Our case series confirmed the correspondence between low T2 SI, low ADC values and increased rCBV within inhomogeneous gliomas
In grade III ADC values were slightly lower respect to grade II, without a threshold value to separate grade II from grade III lesions
The relevance of increased Cho/NAA (area) in HGG undoubtedly needs further investigation
Our results suggest that rCBV measurement may be more accurate than DWI and MRS in the identification of high-grade gliomas
Doubtless, the combination of PWI, DWI and MRS with conventional MRI increases the diagnostic accuracy in differentiating high from low-grade NEGs
Conclusions
Thank You for Your attention
Our acknowledgments to P Mattei & C Schiarelli MD