Using R2* values to evaluate brain tumours on magnetic resonance imaging: Preliminary results
- 437 Downloads
To determine the usefulness of the R2* value in assessing the histopathological grade of glioma at magnetic resonance imaging and differentiating various brain tumours.
Sixty-four patients with brain tumours underwent R2* mapping and diffusion-weighted imaging examinations. ANOVA was performed to analyse R2* values among four groups of glioma and among high-grade gliomas (grades III and IV), low-grade gliomas (grades I and II), meningiomas, and brain metastasis. Spearman’s correlation coefficients were used to determine the relationships between the R2* values or apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and the histopathological grade of gliomas. R2* values of low- and high-grade gliomas were analysed with the receiver-operator characteristic curve.
R2* values were significantly different among high-grade gliomas, low-grade gliomas, meningiomas, and brain metastasis, but not between grade I and grade II or between grade III and grade IV. The R2* value (18.73) of high-grade gliomas provided a very high sensitivity and specificity for differentiating low-grade gliomas. A strong correlation existed between the R2* value and the pathological grade of gliomas.
R2* mapping is a useful sequence for determining grade of gliomas and in distinguishing benign from malignant tumours. R2* values are better than ADC for characterising gliomas.
• Magnetic resonance imaging parameters are increasingly used to assess cerebral lesions.
• R2* values are better than diffusion weighting for characterising gliomas.
• R2* values can help distinguish among different grades of glioma.
• Significant difference existed in R2* values between high- and low-grade gliomas.
KeywordsR2* values Glioma ASL DWI Metastasis
- 14.Barth M, Nöbauer-Huhmann IM, Reichenbach JR et al (2003) High-resolution three-dimensional contrast-enhanced blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance venography of brain tumors at 3 Tesla: first clinical experience and comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 38:409–414PubMedGoogle Scholar