Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31725772›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Heterogeneity Diffusion Imaging of gliomas: Initial experience and validation.

Qing Wang, Gloria J Guzmán Pérez-Carrillo, Maria Rosana Ponisio, Pamela LaMontagne, Sonika Dahiya, Daniel S Marcus, Mikhail Milchenko, Joshua Shimony, Jingxia Liu, Gengsheng Chen and 7 more

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors.

Qing WangDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Gloria J Guzmán Pérez-CarrilloDepartment of Medical Imaging, Neuroradiology Section, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Maria Rosana PonisioDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Pamela LaMontagneDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Sonika DahiyaDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5585-0964
Daniel S MarcusDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Mikhail MilchenkoDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Joshua ShimonyDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Jingxia LiuDepartment of Surgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Gengsheng ChenDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Amber SalterDepartment of Biostatistics, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Parinaz MassoumzadehDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Michelle M Miller-ThomasDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Keith M RichDepartment of Neurosurgery, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-5593-5098
Jonathan McConathyDepartment of Radiology, Division of Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, United States of America.
Tammie L S BenzingerDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Yong WangDepartment of Radiology, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.

Funding

WU INSTITUTE OF CLINICAL AND TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCESUL1TR002345 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI William G. Powderly · 2017 to 2026
$97.8M
Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational SciencesUL1TR000448 · NCATS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI EVANOFF, BRADLEY A · 2012 to 2016
$41.4M
proj 3 - NINDS INSTIUTIONAL CENTER CORE GRANTS TO SUPPORT NEUROSCIENCE RESEARP30NS048056 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI MARCUS, DANIEL SCOTT · 2004 to 2014
$7.4M
Applying Diffusion Basis Spectrum Imaging to Characterize Human Placenta Immuno-response during normal term and preterm pregnanciesR01HD094381 · NICHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI CAHILL, ALISON G, WANG, YONG · 2018 to 2022
$3.1M
BIRN RESOURCES FACILITATE THE PERSONALIZATION OF MALIGNANT BRAIN TUMORR01NS066905 · NINDS · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI FOUKE, SARAH JOST, MARCUS, DANIEL SCOTT · 2009 to 2013
$1.6M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000448NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002345NICHD NIH HHS R01 HD094381NINDS NIH HHS P30 NS048056NINDS NIH HHS R01 NS066905
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesPrimary brain tumors are composed of tumor cells, neural/glial tissues, edema, and vasculature tissue. Conventional MRI has a limited ability to evaluate heterogeneous tumor pathologies. We developed a novel diffusion MRI-based method-Heterogeneity Diffusion Imaging (HDI)-to simultaneously detect and characterize multiple tumor pathologies and capillary blood perfusion using a single diffusion MRI scan.

methodsSeven adult patients with primary brain tumors underwent standard-of-care MRI protocols and HDI protocol before planned surgical resection and/or stereotactic biopsy. Twelve tumor sampling sites were identified using a neuronavigational system and recorded for imaging data quantification. Metrics from both protocols were compared between World Health Organization (WHO) II and III tumor groups. Cerebral blood volume (CBV) derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion imaging was also compared with the HDI-derived perfusion fraction.

resultsThe conventional apparent diffusion coefficient did not identify differences between WHO II and III tumor groups. HDI-derived slow hindered diffusion fraction was significantly elevated in the WHO III group as compared with the WHO II group. There was a non-significantly increasing trend of HDI-derived tumor cellularity fraction in the WHO III group, and both HDI-derived perfusion fraction and DSC-derived CBV were found to be significantly higher in the WHO III group. Both HDI-derived perfusion fraction and slow hindered diffusion fraction strongly correlated with DSC-derived CBV. Neither HDI-derived cellularity fraction nor HDI-derived fast hindered diffusion fraction correlated with DSC-derived CBV.

conclusionsConventional apparent diffusion coefficient, which measures averaged pathology properties of brain tumors, has compromised accuracy and specificity. HDI holds great promise to accurately separate and quantify the tumor cell fraction, the tumor cell packing density, edema, and capillary blood perfusion, thereby leading to an improved microenvironment characterization of primary brain tumors. Larger studies will further establish HDI's clinical value and use for facilitating biopsy planning, treatment evaluation, and noninvasive tumor grading.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingAdultBiopsyBrain NeoplasmsFemaleGliomaHumansMiddle AgedNeoplasm Grading

Identifiers

PMID31725772
PMCPMC6855653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.