ArticleThe neuroradiology journal2021
Accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiation of glioblastoma from metastasis.
Article in The neuroradiology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Differentiation of multiple brain metastases and glioblastoma with multiple foci using MRI criteria.BMC medical imaging · 2024Article
- Application of magnetic resonance imaging-related techniques in the diagnosis of sepsis-associated encephalopathy: present status and prospect.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Review
- Advances in the application of neuroinflammatory molecular imaging in brain malignancies.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Review
- Neuroinflammation and immunoregulation in glioblastoma and brain metastases: Recent developments in imaging approaches.Clinical and experimental immunology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBrain metastasis and glioblastoma multiforme are two of the most common malignant brain neoplasms. There are many difficulties in distinguishing these diseases from each other. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the mean apparent diffusion coefficient and absolute standard deviation derived from apparent diffusion coefficient measurements can be used to differentiate glioblastoma multiforme from brain metastasis based on cellularity levels. MATERIAL AND
methodsMagnetic resonance images of 34 patients with histologically verified brain tumors were evaluated retrospectively. Apparent diffusion coefficient and standard deviation values were measured in the enhancing tumor, peritumoral region, and contralateral healthy white matter. Then, to determine whether there was a statistical difference between brain metastasis and glioblastoma multiforme, we analyzed different variables between the two groups.
resultsNeither mean apparent diffusion coefficient values and ratios nor standard deviation values and ratios were significantly different between glioblastoma multiforme and brain metastasis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of the logistic model with backward stepwise feature selection yielded an area under the curve of 0.77, a specificity of 84%, a sensitivity of 67%, a positive predictive value of 83.33%, and a negative predictive value of 78.26% for distinguishing between glioblastoma multiforme and brain metastasis. The absolute standard deviation and standard deviation ratios were significantly higher in the peritumoral edema compared to the tumor region in each case.
conclusionApparent diffusion coefficient values and ratios, as well as standard deviation values and ratios in peritumoral edema, cannot be used to differentiate edema with infiltration of tumor cells from vasogenic edema. However, standard deviation values could successfully characterize areas of peritumoral edema from the tumoral region in each case.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.