Differentiation among Glioblastoma Multiforme, Solitary Metastatic Tumor, and Lymphoma Using Whole-Tumor Histogram Analysis of the Normalized Cerebral Blood Volume in Enhancing and Perienhancing Lesions
Differentiation among Glioblastoma Multiforme, Solitary Metastatic Tumor, and Lymphoma Using Whole-Tumor Histogram Analysis of the Normalized Cerebral Blood Volume in Enhancing and Perienhancing Lesions
复制标题
DOI：
10.3174/ajnr.a2161
复制
发表时间：
2010-10-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Cho, K. -G.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ma, J. H.;Kim, H. S.;Cho, K. -G.
背景与目的：直方图显示肿瘤血管形态的异质性特征。材料与方法：59例经手术病理证实的基底膜瘤(28例)、基底膜瘤(22例)或淋巴瘤(12例)，术前均行常规磁共振成像和动态磁化率对比增强成像。从对比度增强病灶和周围强化病灶的全肿瘤体素获得归一化CBV的直方图分布。HW、PHP和MV由直方图确定。最初使用单因素方差分析来检验每种类型肿瘤的平均值的总体相等。结果：在对比剂增强病变的全肿瘤直方图分析中，只有PHP能区分基底节瘤(4.79+/-1.31)、间质瘤(3.32+/-1.10)和淋巴瘤(2.08+/-0.54)。GbM和SMTs的HW和MV参数无显著差异，但两种直方图参数均显著高于淋巴瘤。在周围强化病变的分析中，只有MV能区分GBM(1.90+/-0.26)、SMT(0.80+/-0.21)和淋巴瘤(1.27+/-0.34)。HW和PHP在SMT和淋巴瘤之间无显著差异。结论：对对比度增强的病灶和周围强化的病灶，使用归一化CBV的全肿瘤直方图分析有助于区分GBMS、SMT和淋巴瘤。
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The histogram method has been shown to demonstrate heterogeneous morphologic features of tumor vascularity. This study aimed to determine whether whole-tumor histogram analysis of the normalized CBV for contrast-enhancing lesions and perienhancing lesions can differentiate among GBMs, SMTs, and lymphomas.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with histopathologically confirmed GBMs (n = 28), SMTs (n = 22), or lymphomas (n = 12) underwent conventional MR imaging and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced imaging before surgery. Histogram distribution of the normalized CBV was obtained from whole-tumor voxels in contrast-enhancing lesions and perienhancing lesions. The HW, PHP, and MV were determined from histograms. One-way ANOVA was used initially to test the overall equality of mean values for each type of tumor. Subsequently, posttest multiple comparisons were performed.RESULTS: For whole-tumor histogram analyses for contrast-enhancing lesions, only PHP could differentiate among GBMs (4.79 +/- 1.31), SMTs (3.32 +/- 1.10), and lymphomas (2.08 +/- 0.54). The parameters HW and MV were not significantly different between GBMs and SMTs, whereas the 2 histogram parameters were significantly higher in GBMs and SMTs compared with lymphomas. For the analyses of perienhancing lesions, only MV could differentiate among GBMs (1.90 +/- 0.26), SMTs (0.80 +/- 0.21), and lymphomas (1.27 +/- 0.34). HW and PHP were not significantly different between SMTs and lymphomas.CONCLUSIONS: Using a whole-tumor histogram analysis of normalized CBV for contrast-enhancing lesions and perienhancing lesions facilitates differentiation of GBMs, SMTs and lymphomas.