Purpose: To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of MRI diagnostic algorithms with an ascending automatization, in distinguishing between high-grade glioma (HGG) and solitary brain metastases (SBM). Methods: 36 patients with histologically proven HGG (n = 18) or SBM (n = 18), matched by size and location were enrolled from a database containing 655 patients. Four different diagnostic algorithms were performed serially to mimic the clinical setting where a radiologist would typically seek out further findings to reach a decision: pure qualitative, analytic qualitative (based on standardized evaluation of tumor features), semi-quantitative (based on perfusion and diffusion cutoffs included in the literature) and a quantitative data-driven algorithm of the perfusion and diffusion parameters. The diagnostic yields of the four algorithms were tested with ROC analysis and Kendall coefficient of concordance. Results: Qualitative algorithm yielded sensitivity of 72.2%, specificity of 78.8%, and AUC of 0.75. Analytic qualitative algorithm distinguished HGG from SBM with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 77.7%, and an AUC of 0.889. The semi-quantitative algorithm yielded sensitivity of 94.4%, specificity of 83.3%, and AUC = 0.889. The data-driven algorithm yielded sensitivity = 94.4%, specificity = 100%, and AUC = 0.948. The concordance analysis between the four algorithms and the histologic findings showed moderate concordance for the first algorithm, (k = 0.501, P < 0.01), good concordance for the second (k = 0.798, P < 0.01), and third (k = 0.783, P < 0.01), and excellent concordance for fourth (k = 0.901, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: When differentiating HGG from SBM, an analytical qualitative algorithm outperformed qualitative algorithm, and obtained similar results compared to the semi-quantitative approach. However, the use of data-driven quantitative algorithm yielded an excellent differentiation.

Differentiating solitary brain metastases from high-grade gliomas with MR: comparing qualitative versus quantitative diagnostic strategies

Caulo M.
2022-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of MRI diagnostic algorithms with an ascending automatization, in distinguishing between high-grade glioma (HGG) and solitary brain metastases (SBM). Methods: 36 patients with histologically proven HGG (n = 18) or SBM (n = 18), matched by size and location were enrolled from a database containing 655 patients. Four different diagnostic algorithms were performed serially to mimic the clinical setting where a radiologist would typically seek out further findings to reach a decision: pure qualitative, analytic qualitative (based on standardized evaluation of tumor features), semi-quantitative (based on perfusion and diffusion cutoffs included in the literature) and a quantitative data-driven algorithm of the perfusion and diffusion parameters. The diagnostic yields of the four algorithms were tested with ROC analysis and Kendall coefficient of concordance. Results: Qualitative algorithm yielded sensitivity of 72.2%, specificity of 78.8%, and AUC of 0.75. Analytic qualitative algorithm distinguished HGG from SBM with a sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 77.7%, and an AUC of 0.889. The semi-quantitative algorithm yielded sensitivity of 94.4%, specificity of 83.3%, and AUC = 0.889. The data-driven algorithm yielded sensitivity = 94.4%, specificity = 100%, and AUC = 0.948. The concordance analysis between the four algorithms and the histologic findings showed moderate concordance for the first algorithm, (k = 0.501, P < 0.01), good concordance for the second (k = 0.798, P < 0.01), and third (k = 0.783, P < 0.01), and excellent concordance for fourth (k = 0.901, p < 0.0001). Conclusion: When differentiating HGG from SBM, an analytical qualitative algorithm outperformed qualitative algorithm, and obtained similar results compared to the semi-quantitative approach. However, the use of data-driven quantitative algorithm yielded an excellent differentiation.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
s11547-022-01516-2.pdf

Solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Dimensione 896.04 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
896.04 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11564/824923
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 5
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 5
social impact