Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32424712›Full record

ArticleNeuroradiology2020

Differentiation of high-grade from low-grade diffuse gliomas using diffusion-weighted imaging: a comparative study of mono-, bi-, and stretched-exponential diffusion models.

Masaoki Kusunoki, Kazufumi Kikuchi, Osamu Togao, Koji Yamashita, Daichi Momosaka, Yoshitomo Kikuchi, Daisuke Kuga, Nobuhiro Hata, Masahiro Mizoguchi, Koji Iihara and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Neuroradiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Differentiating Brain Metastasis and High-Grade Glioma Using Multi-b Value Diffusion MRI and Tumor Volumetry.Journal of neuroimaging : official journal of the American Society of Neuroimaging
    Article
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

14 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masaoki KusunokiDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Kazufumi KikuchiDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. kkikuchi@radiol.med.kyushu-u.ac.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1292-1846
Osamu TogaoDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Koji YamashitaDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Daichi MomosakaDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yoshitomo KikuchiDepartment of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Daisuke KugaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Nobuhiro HataDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Masahiro MizoguchiDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Koji IiharaDepartment of Neurosurgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Satoshi O SuzukiDepartment of Neuropathology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Toru IwakiDepartment of Neuropathology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Yuta AkaminePhilips Japan, 13-37, Kohnan 2-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 108-8507, Japan.
Akio HiwatashiDepartment of Molecular Imaging & Diagnosis, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Kyushu University · JP

Funding

Clinical Research Promotion Foundation (2019) NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDiffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) plays an important role in the preoperative assessment of gliomas; however, the diagnostic performance of histogram-derived parameters from mono-, bi-, and stretched-exponential DWI models in the grading of gliomas has not been fully investigated. Therefore, we compared these models' ability to differentiate between high-grade and low-grade gliomas.

methodsThis retrospective study included 22 patients with diffuse gliomas (age, 23-74 years; 12 males; 11 high-grade and 11 low-grade gliomas) who underwent preoperative 3 T-magnetic resonance imaging from October 2014 to August 2019. The apparent diffusion coefficient was calculated from the mono-exponential model. Using 13 b-values, the true-diffusion coefficient, pseudo-diffusion coefficient, and perfusion fraction were obtained from the bi-exponential model, and the distributed-diffusion coefficient and heterogeneity index were obtained from the stretched-exponential model. Region-of-interests were drawn on each imaging parameter map for subsequent histogram analyses.

resultsThe skewness of the apparent diffusion, true-diffusion, and distributed-diffusion coefficients was significantly higher in high-grade than in low-grade gliomas (0.67 ± 0.67 vs. - 0.18 ± 0.63, 0.68 ± 0.74 vs. - 0.08 ± 0.66, 0.63 ± 0.72 vs. - 0.15 ± 0.73; P = 0.0066, 0.0192, and 0.0128, respectively). The 10th percentile of the heterogeneity index was significantly lower (0.77 ± 0.08 vs. 0.88 ± 0.04; P = 0.0004), and the 90th percentile of the perfusion fraction was significantly higher (12.64 ± 3.44 vs. 7.14 ± 1.70%: P < 0.0001), in high-grade than in low-grade gliomas. The combination of the 10th percentile of the true-diffusion coefficient and 90th percentile of the perfusion fraction showed the best area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.96).

conclusionThe bi-exponential model exhibited the best diagnostic performance for differentiating high-grade from low-grade gliomas.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBrain NeoplasmsDiagnosis, DifferentialDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleGliomaHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingRetrospective StudiesBi-exponential modelDiffusion-weighted imagingHigh-grade gliomaLow-grade gliomaStretched-exponential model

Identifiers

PMID32424712
PMCPMC7311374
OpenAlexW3027394418

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.