"skipMainNavigation"
closeDrawerMenuopenDrawerMenu
Search
Quick Search in Journals
Quick Search anywhere
Advanced Search
Radiology
Menu
  • Information
    • Previous
    Next
    Original Research

    Gliomas: Diffusion Kurtosis MR Imaging in Grading

    Published Online:May 1 2012https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12110927

    Abstract

    Mean kurtosis and linearly related kurtosis tensor parameters are potential new noninvasive biomarkers in the grading of gliomas.

    Purpose

    To assess the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging parameters in grading gliomas.

    Materials and Methods

    The institutional review board approved this prospective study, and informed consent was obtained from all patients. Diffusion parameters—mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), mean kurtosis, and radial and axial kurtosis—were compared in the solid parts of 17 high-grade gliomas and 11 low-grade gliomas (P<.05 significance level, Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test, Bonferroni correction). MD, FA, mean kurtosis, radial kurtosis, and axial kurtosis in solid tumors were also normalized to the corresponding values in contralateral normal-appearing white matter (NAWM) and the contralateral posterior limb of the internal capsule (PLIC) after age correction and were compared among tumor grades.

    Results

    Mean, radial, and axial kurtosis were significantly higher in high-grade gliomas than in low-grade gliomas (P = .02, P = .015, and P = .01, respectively). FA and MD did not significantly differ between glioma grades. All values, except for axial kurtosis, that were normalized to the values in the contralateral NAWM were significantly different between high-grade and low-grade gliomas (mean kurtosis, P = .02; radial kurtosis, P = .03; FA, P = .025; and MD, P = .03). When values were normalized to those in the contralateral PLIC, none of the considered parameters showed significant differences between high-grade and low-grade gliomas. The highest sensitivity and specificity for discriminating between high-grade and low-grade gliomas were found for mean kurtosis (71% and 82%, respectively) and mean kurtosis normalized to the value in the contralateral NAWM (100% and 73%, respectively). Optimal thresholds for mean kurtosis and mean kurtosis normalized to the value in the contralateral NAWM for differentiating high-grade from low-grade gliomas were 0.52 and 0.51, respectively.

    Conclusion

    There were significant differences in kurtosis parameters between high-grade and low-grade gliomas; hence, better separation was achieved with these parameters than with conventional diffusion imaging parameters.

    © RSNA, 2012

    References

    • 1 Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, et al.. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol (Berl) 2007;114(2):97–109. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 2 Zonari P, Baraldi P, Crisi G. Multimodal MRI in the characterization of glial neoplasms: the combined role of single-voxel MR spectroscopy, diffusion imaging and echo-planar perfusion imaging. Neuroradiology 2007;49(10):795–803. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 3 Tropine A, Vucurevic G, Delani P, et al.. Contribution of diffusion tensor imaging to delineation of gliomas and glioblastomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20(6):905–912. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 4 Goebell E, Paustenbach S, Vaeterlein O, et al.. Low-grade and anaplastic gliomas: differences in architecture evaluated with diffusion-tensor MR imaging. Radiology 2006;239(1):217–222. Link, Google Scholar
    • 5 Lam WW, Poon WS, Metreweli C. Diffusion MR imaging in glioma: does it have any role in the pre-operation determination of grading of glioma? Clin Radiol 2002;57(3):219–225. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 6 Le Bihan D, Turner R, Douek P, Patronas N. Diffusion MR imaging: clinical applications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159(3):591–599. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 7 Poot DH, den Dekker AJ, Achten E, Verhoye M, Sijbers J. Optimal experimental design for diffusion kurtosis imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29(3):819–829. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 8 Wu EX, Cheung MM. MR diffusion kurtosis imaging for neural tissue characterization. NMR Biomed 2010;23(7):836–848. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 9 Hui ES, Cheung MM, Qi L, Wu EX. Towards better MR characterization of neural tissues using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis. Neuroimage 2008;42(1):122–134. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 10 Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2005;53(6):1432–1440. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 11 Fieremans E, Jensen JH, Helpern JA. White matter characterization with diffusional kurtosis imaging. Neuroimage 2011;58(1):177–188. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 12 Daumas-Duport C, Scheithauer B, O’Fallon J, Kelly P. Grading of astrocytomas: a simple and reproducible method. Cancer 1988;62(10):2152–2165. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 13 Singhal T, Narayanan TK, Jain V, Mukherjee J, Mantil J. 11C-L-methionine positron emission tomography in the clinical management of cerebral gliomas. Mol Imaging Biol 2008;10(1):1–18. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 14 Jones DK, Cercignani M. Twenty-five pitfalls in the analysis of diffusion MRI data. NMR Biomed 2010;23(7):803–820. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 15 Leemans A, Jones DK. The B-matrix must be rotated when correcting for subject motion in DTI data. Magn Reson Med 2009;61(6):1336–1349. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 16 Veraart J, Poot DH, Van Hecke W, et al.. More accurate estimation of diffusion tensor parameters using diffusion kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 2011;65(1):138–145. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 17 Veraart J, Van Hecke W, Sijbers J. Constrained maximum likelihood estimation of the diffusion kurtosis tensor using a Rician noise model. Magn Reson Med 2011;66(3):678–686. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 18 Le Bihan D, Mangin JF, Poupon C, et al.. Diffusion tensor imaging: concepts and applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13(4):534–546. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 19 Falangola MF, Jensen JH, Babb JS, et al.. Age-related non-Gaussian diffusion patterns in the prefrontal brain. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(6):1345–1350. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 20 Dean BL, Drayer BP, Bird CR, et al.. Gliomas: classification with MR imaging. Radiology 1990;174(2):411–415. Link, Google Scholar
    • 21 Scott JN, Brasher PM, Sevick RJ, Rewcastle NB, Forsyth PA. How often are nonenhancing supratentorial gliomas malignant? a population study. Neurology 2002;59(6):947–949. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 22 Watanabe M, Tanaka R, Takeda N. Magnetic resonance imaging and histopathology of cerebral gliomas. Neuroradiology 1992;34(6):463–469. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 23 Raab P, Hattingen E, Franz K, Zanella FE, Lanfermann H. Cerebral gliomas: diffusional kurtosis imaging analysis of microstructural differences. Radiology 2010;254(3):876–881. Link, Google Scholar
    • 24 Mulkern RV, Haker SJ, Maier SE. On high b diffusion imaging in the human brain: ruminations and experimental insights. Magn Reson Imaging 2009;27(8):1151–1162. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 25 Kleihues P, Soylemezoglu F, Schäuble B, Scheithauer BW, Burger PC. Histopathology, classification, and grading of gliomas. Glia 1995;15(3):211–221. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 26 Maier SE, Sun Y, Mulkern RV. Diffusion imaging of brain tumors. NMR Biomed 2010;23(7):849–864. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 27 Löbel U, Sedlacik J, Güllmar D, Kaiser WA, Reichenbach JR, Mentzel HJ. Diffusion tensor imaging: the normal evolution of ADC, RA, FA, and eigenvalues studied in multiple anatomical regions of the brain. Neuroradiology 2009;51(4):253–263. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 28 Kang X, Herron TJ, Woods DL. Regional variation, hemispheric asymmetries and gender differences in pericortical white matter. Neuroimage 2011;56(4):2011–2023. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 29 Beppu T, Inoue T, Shibata Y, et al.. Measurement of fractional anisotropy using diffusion tensor MRI in supratentorial astrocytic tumors. J Neurooncol 2003;63(2):109–116. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 30 Kinoshita M, Hashimoto N, Goto T, et al.. Fractional anisotropy and tumor cell density of the tumor core show positive correlation in diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of malignant brain tumors. Neuroimage 2008;43(1):29–35. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 31 Stadnik TW, Chaskis C, Michotte A, et al.. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of intracerebral masses: comparison with conventional MR imaging and histologic findings. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22(5):969–976. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 32 Castillo M, Smith JK, Kwock L, Wilber K. Apparent diffusion coefficients in the evaluation of high-grade cerebral gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001;22(1):60–64. Medline, Google Scholar
    • 33 Lee EJ, Lee SK, Agid R, Bae JM, Keller A, Terbrugge K. Preoperative grading of presumptive low-grade astrocytomas on MR imaging: diagnostic value of minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29(10):1872–1877. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
    • 34 Cha S. Update on brain tumor imaging: from anatomy to physiology. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27(3):475–487. Medline, Google Scholar

    Article History

    Received May 5, 2011; revision requested July 12; revision received October 21; accepted November 11; final version accepted November 21.
    Published online: May 2012
    Published in print: May 2012