Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Comparison of the IVIM parameters of high- (WHO grades III and IV) and low-grade (WHO grades I and II) tumors. D and ADC were lower in high-grade than in low-grade tumors (D, 0.85 ± 0.40 versus 1.53 ± 0.21 × 10−3 mm2/s, P = .0003; ADC, 1.04 ± 0.33 versus 1.60 ± 0.21 × 10−3 mm2/s, P = .0007; A). D was significantly lower than the ADC in high- (P = .0010) and low-grade (P = .0004; A) tumors. D* showed wide variability and no significant differences between the high- and low-grade groups (P = .8337; B). The f was higher in high- than in low-grade tumors (21.7 ± 8.2% versus 7.6 ± 4.3%, P = .0003; C).
- Fig 2.
Images from an 11-year-old boy with histologically defined classic medulloblastoma (WHO grade IV). A, T2WI shows a heterogeneous, hyperintense mass in the vermis. B, Contrast-enhanced T1WI shows heterogeneous enhancement of the tumor. C, The D map shows the low D value (0.53 × 10−3 mm2/s) of the lesion, which is lower than the cutoff value (≤1.15 × 10−3 mm2/s; Table 3). D, The f map shows the f value (27.1%) of the lesion, which is higher than the cutoff value (>14.1%; Table 3). E, MIB-1 staining reveals a high MIB-1 index (72.6%). F, Immunohistochemical staining for anti-CD31 shows a high MVD (10.2%). Bar = 100 μm.
- Fig 3.
Images from a 6-year-old boy with pilocytic astrocytoma (WHO grade I). A, T2WI shows a homogeneous, hyperintense mass in the vermis. B, Contrast-enhanced T1WI shows mild, heterogeneous enhancement of the tumor. C, The D map shows the high D value (1.72 × 10−3 mm2/s) of the lesion, which is higher than the cutoff value (≤1.15 × 10−3 mm2/s; Table 3). D, The f map shows the low f value (4.2%) of the lesion, which is lower than the cutoff value (>14.1%; Table 3). E, MIB-1 staining reveals a low MIB-1 index (6.0%). F, Immunohistochemical staining for anti-CD31 reveals a low MVD (3.2%). Bar = 100 μm.
Tables
No. Age, Sex Histology IVIM Parameters ADC (× 10−3 mm2/s) Pathologic Diagnosis WHO Grade MIB-1 (%) MVD D (× 10−3 mm2/s) f (%) D* (× 10−3 mm2/s) 1 6 yr, M Diffuse midline glioma, H3 K27M-mutant IV 59.2 3.1 1.50 16.4 5.6 1.61 2 4 yr, M Medulloblastoma, classic, histologically defined IV 15.6 34.7 0.30 37.7 13.7 0.56 3 11 yr, M Medulloblastoma, classic, histologically defined IV 72.6 10.2 0.53 27.1 30.2 0.87 4 3 yr, M Atypical teratoid/rhabdoid tumor IV 50.0 11.0 0.86 14.1 9.0 0.98 5 2 yr, F Anaplastic ependymoma III 23.2 12.5 0.87 19.3 18.4 1.02 6 3 yr, M Anaplastic ependymoma III 19.6 4.3 1.15 16.8 5.5 1.30 7 6 yr, F Anaplastic ependymoma III 58.4 10.1 0.71 20.7 41.7 0.96 8 12 yr, M Diffuse astrocytoma, IDH wild-type II 2.1 2.1 1.22 8.4 33.3 1.29 9 1 yr, M Pilocytic astrocytoma I 4.4 5.8 1.45 3.5 5.5 1.50 10 3 yr, F Pilocytic astrocytoma I 6.7 4.0 1.82 7.2 10.2 1.88 11 3 yr, M Pilocytic astrocytoma I 8.0 4.7 1.52 10.0 48.3 1.64 12 6 yr, M Pilocytic astrocytoma I 6.0 3.2 1.72 4.2 58.4 1.78 13 11 yr, F Pilocytic astrocytoma I 4.0 5.6 1.55 5.5 12.8 1.61 14 2 yr, M Subependymoma I 0.1 1.9 1.58 5.1 11.3 1.60 15 2 mo, F Choroid plexus papilloma I 0.1 13.4 1.47 17.4 11.6 1.62 16 10 yr, M Dysembryoplastic neuroepithelial tumor I 2.7 1.3 1.76 10.9 4.3 1.82 17 15 yr, F Ganglioglioma I 1.0 1.1 1.21 3.6 22.4 1.24 Note:—IDH indicates isocitrate dehydrogenase.
Parameters High-Grade Tumor Low-Grade Tumor P Value D (× 10−3 mm2/s) 0.30–1.50, 0.86, 0.85 ± 0.40 1.21–1.82, 1.54, 1.53 ± 0.21 .0003b ADC (× 10−3 mm2/s) 0.56–1.61, 0.98, 1.04 ± 0.33 1.24–1.88, 1.62, 1.60 ± 0.21 .0007b D* (× 10−3 mm2/s) 5.5–41.7, 13.7, 17.7 ± 13.7 4.3–58.4, 12.8, 21.8 ± 18.8 .8337c f (%) 14.1–37.7, 19.3, 21.7 ± 8.2 3.5–17.4, 6.4, 7.6 ± 4.3 .0003b MVD (%) 3.1–34.7, 10.2, 12.3 ± 10.5 1.1–13.4, 3.6, 4.3 ± 3.6 .0431c MIB-1 (%) 15.6–72.6, 50.0, 42.7 ± 22.8 0.1–8.0, 3.4, 3.5 ± 2.8 <.0001b - Table 3:
Diagnostic performance of parameters in differentiating high- and low-grade tumors
Parameters Cutoff Value Sensitivity (%) Specificity (%) AUC D (× 10−3 mm2/s) ≤1.15 85.7 85.7 0.943 D* (× 10−3 mm2/s) >9.0 42.9 22.9 0.536 f (%) >14.1 100 90.0 0.957 ADC (× 10−3 mm2/s) ≤1.02 71.4 71.4 0.907 D + f ≤1.50, >16.4 100 90.0 0.986 Note:—AUC indicates area under the curve.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Perfusion Showdown: Comparison of Multiple MRI Perfusion Techniques in the Grading of Pediatric Brain Tumors
- Interobserver Reliability on Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Imaging in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke
- Grading of Pediatric Intracranial Tumors: Are Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging Superior to Conventional DWI?
- Radiomics of Pediatric Low-Grade Gliomas: Toward a Pretherapeutic Differentiation of BRAF-Mutated and BRAF-Fused Tumors