Grading Gliomas Capability: Comparison between Visual Assessment and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) Value Measurement on Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI)

Document Type : Research Articles

Authors

1 Department of Radiology,Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

2 Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen, Thailand.

Abstract

Background: To compare diagnostic accuracy between DWI visual scale assessment and ADC value measurement of solid portion of the tumor in grading gliomas. Methods: This retrospective study included 38 patients who had pathologically proven gliomas between January 2013 and August 2018 with 18 low grade and 20 high grade tumors. All patients underwent MRI and biopsy. Two readers reviewed DWI visual scale independently. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. One reviewer measured ADC value of entire solid part of the tumor in single axial slice with greatest dimension of tumor which was chosen by consensus. Two data sets of visual scale and ADC value were analyzed and comparison of diagnostic accuracy in glioma grading was done by using area under the curve (AUC) of receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Results: Visual scale and ADC value could be used to distinguish between low and high grade gliomas with a statistically significant difference. (P-value 0.002 and <0.001). Almost all high grade gliomas had visual scale 5. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV NPV and accuracy were 50%, 100%, 100% , 64.3%,73.68% respectively. The cutoff level for the ADC value was determined to be 1119.48 x10-6 mm2/s in differentiation between low and high grade gliomas with the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy of 90%, 88.89% , 90%, 88.9% and 89.47% respectively. There was no statistically significant difference(P-value = 0.163). Conclusion: Both Visual scale and ADC value were capable of differentiating between low and high grade gliomas. Although visual scale may not replace ADC measurement, larger scale prospective study is needed for validate this initial result.
 

Keywords

Main Subjects

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention
Volume 21, Issue 2
February 2020
Pages 385-390

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 13 June 2019
  • Revise Date: 29 October 2019
  • Accept Date: 23 December 2019

Share

How to cite

Statistics