Evaluation of glioblastomas and lymphomas with whole-brain CT perfusion: Comparison between a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm and a Patlak plot

Hiwatashi Akio, Osamu Togao, Koji Yamashita, kazufumi kikuchi, Koji Yoshimoto, Masahiro Mizoguchi, Satoshi Suzuki, Takashi Yoshiura, Hiroshi Honda

研究成果: ジャーナルへの寄稿記事

6 引用 (Scopus)

抄録

Objective: Correction of contrast leakage is recommended when enhancing lesions during perfusion analysis. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of computed tomography perfusion (CTP) with a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm (SVD+) and a Patlak plot in differentiating glioblastomas from lymphomas. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 17 adult patients (12 men and 5 women) with pathologically proven glioblastomas (n = 10) and lymphomas (n = 7). CTP data were analyzed using SVD+ and a Patlak plot. The relative tumor blood volume and flow compared to contralateral normal-appearing gray matter (rCBV and rCBF derived from SVD+, and rBV and rFlow derived from the Patlak plot) were used to differentiate between glioblastomas and lymphomas. The Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used for statistical analysis. Results: Glioblastomas showed significantly higher rFlow (3.05 ± 0.49, mean ± standard deviation) than lymphomas (1.56 ± 0.53; P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between glioblastomas and lymphomas in rBV (2.52 ± 1.57 vs. 1.03 ± 0.51; P > 0.05), rCBF (1.38 ± 0.41 vs. 1.29 ± 0.47; P > 0.05), or rCBV (1.78 ± 0.47 vs. 1.87 ± 0.66; P > 0.05). ROC analysis showed the best diagnostic performance with rFlow (Az = 0.871), followed by rBV (Az = 0.771), rCBF (Az = 0.614), and rCBV (Az = 0.529). Conclusion: CTP analysis with a Patlak plot was helpful in differentiating between glioblastomas and lymphomas, but CTP analysis with SVD+ was not.

元の言語英語
ページ(範囲)266-272
ページ数7
ジャーナルJournal of Neuroradiology
43
発行部数4
DOI
出版物ステータス出版済み - 7 1 2016

Fingerprint

Glioblastoma
Lymphoma
Perfusion
Tomography
Brain
ROC Curve
Nonparametric Statistics
Blood Volume
Tumor Burden
Prospective Studies

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Clinical Neurology

これを引用

@article{08787a9082dd4bc39bfa2ad766fc18d3,
title = "Evaluation of glioblastomas and lymphomas with whole-brain CT perfusion: Comparison between a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm and a Patlak plot",
abstract = "Objective: Correction of contrast leakage is recommended when enhancing lesions during perfusion analysis. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of computed tomography perfusion (CTP) with a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm (SVD+) and a Patlak plot in differentiating glioblastomas from lymphomas. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 17 adult patients (12 men and 5 women) with pathologically proven glioblastomas (n = 10) and lymphomas (n = 7). CTP data were analyzed using SVD+ and a Patlak plot. The relative tumor blood volume and flow compared to contralateral normal-appearing gray matter (rCBV and rCBF derived from SVD+, and rBV and rFlow derived from the Patlak plot) were used to differentiate between glioblastomas and lymphomas. The Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used for statistical analysis. Results: Glioblastomas showed significantly higher rFlow (3.05 ± 0.49, mean ± standard deviation) than lymphomas (1.56 ± 0.53; P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between glioblastomas and lymphomas in rBV (2.52 ± 1.57 vs. 1.03 ± 0.51; P > 0.05), rCBF (1.38 ± 0.41 vs. 1.29 ± 0.47; P > 0.05), or rCBV (1.78 ± 0.47 vs. 1.87 ± 0.66; P > 0.05). ROC analysis showed the best diagnostic performance with rFlow (Az = 0.871), followed by rBV (Az = 0.771), rCBF (Az = 0.614), and rCBV (Az = 0.529). Conclusion: CTP analysis with a Patlak plot was helpful in differentiating between glioblastomas and lymphomas, but CTP analysis with SVD+ was not.",
author = "Hiwatashi Akio and Osamu Togao and Koji Yamashita and kazufumi kikuchi and Koji Yoshimoto and Masahiro Mizoguchi and Satoshi Suzuki and Takashi Yoshiura and Hiroshi Honda",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.neurad.2016.01.147",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "266--272",
journal = "Journal of Neuroradiology",
issn = "0150-9861",
publisher = "Elsevier Masson",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of glioblastomas and lymphomas with whole-brain CT perfusion

T2 - Comparison between a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm and a Patlak plot

AU - Akio, Hiwatashi

AU - Togao, Osamu

AU - Yamashita, Koji

AU - kikuchi, kazufumi

AU - Yoshimoto, Koji

AU - Mizoguchi, Masahiro

AU - Suzuki, Satoshi

AU - Yoshiura, Takashi

AU - Honda, Hiroshi

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Objective: Correction of contrast leakage is recommended when enhancing lesions during perfusion analysis. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of computed tomography perfusion (CTP) with a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm (SVD+) and a Patlak plot in differentiating glioblastomas from lymphomas. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 17 adult patients (12 men and 5 women) with pathologically proven glioblastomas (n = 10) and lymphomas (n = 7). CTP data were analyzed using SVD+ and a Patlak plot. The relative tumor blood volume and flow compared to contralateral normal-appearing gray matter (rCBV and rCBF derived from SVD+, and rBV and rFlow derived from the Patlak plot) were used to differentiate between glioblastomas and lymphomas. The Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used for statistical analysis. Results: Glioblastomas showed significantly higher rFlow (3.05 ± 0.49, mean ± standard deviation) than lymphomas (1.56 ± 0.53; P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between glioblastomas and lymphomas in rBV (2.52 ± 1.57 vs. 1.03 ± 0.51; P > 0.05), rCBF (1.38 ± 0.41 vs. 1.29 ± 0.47; P > 0.05), or rCBV (1.78 ± 0.47 vs. 1.87 ± 0.66; P > 0.05). ROC analysis showed the best diagnostic performance with rFlow (Az = 0.871), followed by rBV (Az = 0.771), rCBF (Az = 0.614), and rCBV (Az = 0.529). Conclusion: CTP analysis with a Patlak plot was helpful in differentiating between glioblastomas and lymphomas, but CTP analysis with SVD+ was not.

AB - Objective: Correction of contrast leakage is recommended when enhancing lesions during perfusion analysis. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of computed tomography perfusion (CTP) with a delay-invariant singular-value decomposition algorithm (SVD+) and a Patlak plot in differentiating glioblastomas from lymphomas. Materials and methods: This prospective study included 17 adult patients (12 men and 5 women) with pathologically proven glioblastomas (n = 10) and lymphomas (n = 7). CTP data were analyzed using SVD+ and a Patlak plot. The relative tumor blood volume and flow compared to contralateral normal-appearing gray matter (rCBV and rCBF derived from SVD+, and rBV and rFlow derived from the Patlak plot) were used to differentiate between glioblastomas and lymphomas. The Mann-Whitney U test and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were used for statistical analysis. Results: Glioblastomas showed significantly higher rFlow (3.05 ± 0.49, mean ± standard deviation) than lymphomas (1.56 ± 0.53; P < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between glioblastomas and lymphomas in rBV (2.52 ± 1.57 vs. 1.03 ± 0.51; P > 0.05), rCBF (1.38 ± 0.41 vs. 1.29 ± 0.47; P > 0.05), or rCBV (1.78 ± 0.47 vs. 1.87 ± 0.66; P > 0.05). ROC analysis showed the best diagnostic performance with rFlow (Az = 0.871), followed by rBV (Az = 0.771), rCBF (Az = 0.614), and rCBV (Az = 0.529). Conclusion: CTP analysis with a Patlak plot was helpful in differentiating between glioblastomas and lymphomas, but CTP analysis with SVD+ was not.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84959421599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84959421599&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.neurad.2016.01.147

DO - 10.1016/j.neurad.2016.01.147

M3 - Article

C2 - 26947963

AN - SCOPUS:84959421599

VL - 43

SP - 266

EP - 272

JO - Journal of Neuroradiology

JF - Journal of Neuroradiology

SN - 0150-9861

IS - 4

ER -