ArticleWorld neurosurgery: X2023
Differentiation of astrocytoma between grades II and III using a combination of methionine positron emission tomography and magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
Article in World neurosurgery: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to establish a method for differentiating between grades II and III astrocytomas using preoperative imaging. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed astrocytic tumors, including 18 grade II astrocytomas (isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH)-mutant: IDH-wildtype = 8:10) and 56 grade III anaplastic astrocytomas (37:19). We recorded the maximum methionine (MET) uptake ratios (tumor-to-normal: T/N) on positron emission tomography (PET) and three MRS peak ratios: choline (Cho)/creatine (Cr), N-acetyl aspartate (NAA)/Cr, and Cho/NAA, between June 2015 and June 2020. We then evaluated the cut-off values to differentiate between grades II and III. We compared the grading results between contrast enhancement effects on MR and combinational diagnostic methods (CDM) on a scatter chart using the cutoff values of the T/N ratio and MRS parameters. Results: The IDH-mutant group showed significant differences in the Cho/NAA ratio between grades II and III using univariate analysis; however, multiple regression analysis results negated this. The IDH-wildtype group showed no significant differences between the groups. Contrast enhancement effects also showed no significant differences in IDH status. Accordingly, regardless of the IDH status, no statistically independent factors differentiated between grades II and III. However, CDMs showed higher sensitivity and negative predictive value in distinguishing them than MRI contrast examinations for both IDH statuses. We demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic rate of grade III than of grade II with CDM, which was more striking in the IDH-mutant group than in the wild-type group. Conclusions: CDM could be valuable in differentiating between grade II and III astrocytic tumors.
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.