Advertisement

Acta Neurochirurgica

, Volume 157, Issue 2, pp 195–206 | Cite as

Linear array ultrasound in low-grade glioma surgery: histology-based assessment of accuracy in comparison to conventional intraoperative ultrasound and intraoperative MRI

  • Jan CoburgerEmail author
  • Angelika Scheuerle
  • Dietmar Rudolf Thal
  • Jens Engelke
  • Michal Hlavac
  • Christian R. Wirtz
  • Ralph König
Clinical Article - Brain Tumors

Abstract

Introduction

In low-grade glioma (LGG) surgery, intraoperative differentiation between tumor and most likely tumor-free brain tissue can be challenging. Intraoperative ultrasound can facilitate tumor resection. The aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of linear array ultrasound in comparison to conventional intraoperative ultrasound (cioUS) and intraoperative high-field MRI (iMRI).

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 13 patients harboring a LGG of WHO Grade II. After assumed near total removal, a resection control was performed using navigated cioUS, navigated lioUS, and iMRI. We harvested 30 navigated biopsies from the resection cavity and compared the histopathological findings with the respective imaging results. Spearman’s rho was calculated to test for significant correlations. Sensitivity and specificity as well as receiver operating characteristics (ROC) were calculated to assess test performance of each imaging modality.

Results

Imaging results of lioUS correlated significantly (p < 0.009) with iMRI. Both iMRI and lioUS correlated significantly with final histopathological diagnosis (p < 0.006, p < 0.014). cioUS did not correlate with other imaging findings or with final diagnosis.

The highest sensitivity for residual tumor detection was found in iMRI (83 %), followed by lioUS (79 %). The sensitivity of cioUS was only 21 %. Specificity was highest in cioUS (100 %), whereas iMRI and lioUS both achieved 67 %. ROC curves showed fair results for iMRI and lioUS and a poor result for cioUS.

Conclusions

Intraoperative resection control in LGGs using lioUS reaches a degree of accuracy close to iMRI. Test results of lioUS are superior to cioUS. cioUS often fails to discriminate solid tumors from “normal” brain tissue during resection control. Only in lesions <10 cc cioUS does show good accuracy.

Keywords

Linear array intraoperative ultrasound iMRI Ultrasound LGG Low-grade glioma Sensitivity Specificity 

Notes

Disclosure statement

For scientific use, the department of neurosurgery was provided with a software plugin and specific hardware to integrate ioUS into the neuronavigation software by Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany). RK has worked as a medical consultant for Brainlab AG (Feldkirchen, Germany). DRT received consultancies from Simon-Kucher and Partners (Germany), Covance Laboratories (UK), and GE-Healthcare (UK), received a speaker honorarium from GE-Healthcare (UK) and collaborated with Novartis Pharma Basel (Switzerland).

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Bozinov O, Burkhardt JK (2012) Intra-operative computed-tomography-like real-time three-dimensional ultrasound in neurosurgery. World Neurosurg 78:5–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Coburger J, Konig RW, Scheuerle A, Engelke J, Hlavac M, Thal DR, Wirtz CR (2014) Navigated high-frequency ultrasound: description of technique and clinical comparison with conventional intracranial ultrasound. World Neurosurg 82:366–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gerganov VM, Samii A, Akbarian A, Stieglitz L, Samii M, Fahlbusch R (2009) Reliability of intraoperative high-resolution 2D ultrasound as an alternative to high-field strength MR imaging for tumor resection control: a prospective comparative study. J Neurosurg 111:512–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gerganov VM, Samii A, Giordano M, Samii M, Fahlbusch R (2011) Two-dimensional high-end ultrasound imaging compared to intraoperative MRI during resection of low-grade gliomas. J Clin Neurosci 18:669–673PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gronningsaeter A, Kleven A, Ommedal S, Aarseth TE, Lie T, Lindseth F, Lango T, Unsgard G (2000) SonoWand, an ultrasound-based neuronavigation system. Neurosurgery 47:1373–1379, discussion 1379–1380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143:29–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatiboglu MA, Weinberg JS, Suki D, Rao G, Prabhu SS, Shah K, Jackson E, Sawaya R (2009) Impact of intraoperative high-field magnetic resonance imaging guidance on glioma surgery: a prospective volumetric analysis. Neurosurgery 64:1073–1081, discussion 1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jakola AS, Myrmel KS, Kloster R, Torp SH, Lindal S, Unsgard G, Solheim O (2012) Comparison of a strategy favoring early surgical resection vs a strategy favoring watchful waiting in low-grade gliomas. JAMA 308:1881–1888PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jakola AS, Unsgard G, Myrmel KS, Kloster R, Torp SH, Lindal S, Solheim O (2012) Low-grade gliomas in eloquent locations—implications for surgical strategy, survival and long term quality of life. PLoS One 7:e51450PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krekel NM, Zonderhuis BM, Schreurs HW, Cardozo AM, Rijna H, van der Veen H, Muller S, Poortman P, de Widt L, de Roos WK, Bosch AM, Taets van Amerongen AH, Bergers E, van der Linden MH, de Lange de Klerk ES, Winters HA, Meijer S, van den Tol PM (2011) Ultrasound-guided breast-sparing surgery to improve cosmetic outcomes and quality of life. A prospective multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial comparing ultrasound-guided surgery to traditional palpation-guided surgery (COBALT trial). BMC Surg 11:8PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liang D, Schulder M (2012) The role of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging in glioma surgery. Surg Neurol Int 3:S320–S327PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD, Cavenee WK, Burger PC, Jouvet A, Scheithauer BW, Kleihues P (2007) The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 114:97–109PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGirt MJ, Chaichana KL, Attenello FJ, Weingart JD, Than K, Burger PC, Olivi A, Brem H, Quinoñes-Hinojosa A (2008) Extent of surgical resection is independently associated with survival in patients with hemispheric infiltrating low-grade gliomas. Neurosurgery 63:700–708PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nimsky C, Ganslandt O, Fahlbusch R (2005) Comparing 0.2 Tesla with 1.5 Tesla intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging analysis of setup, workflow, and efficiency. Acad Radiol 12:1065–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pallud J, Varlet P, Devaux B, Geha S, Badoual M, Deroulers C, Page P, Dezamis E, Daumas-Duport C, Roux FX (2010) Diffuse low-grade oligodendrogliomas extend beyond MRI-defined abnormalities. Neurology 74:1724–1731PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pamir MN, Özduman K, Yıldız E, Sav A, Dinçer A (2013) Intraoperative magnetic resonance spectroscopy for identification of residual tumor during low-grade glioma surgery. J Neurosurg 118:1191–1198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Renovanz M, Hickmann AK, Henkel C, Nadji-Ohl M, Hopf NJ (2014) Navigated versus non-navigated intraoperative ultrasound: is there any impact on the extent of resection of high-grade gliomas? A retrospective clinical analysis. J Neurol Surg A Cent Eur Neurosurg 75:224–230PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schlaier JR, Warnat J, Dorenbeck U, Proescholdt M, Schebesch KM, Brawanski A (2004) Image fusion of MR images and real-time ultrasonography: evaluation of fusion accuracy combining two commercial instruments, a neuronavigation system and a ultrasound system. Acta Neurochir 146:271–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Selbekk T, Brekken R, Indergaard M, Solheim O, Unsgard G (2012) Comparison of contrast in brightness mode and strain ultrasonography of glial brain tumours. BMC Med Imaging 12:11PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Selbekk T, Jakola AS, Solheim O, Johansen TF, Lindseth F, Reinertsen I, Unsgard G (2013) Ultrasound imaging in neurosurgery: approaches to minimize surgically induced image artefacts for improved resection control. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 155:973–980CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Senft C, Bink A, Franz K, Vatter H, Gasser T, Seifert V (2011) Intraoperative MRI guidance and extent of resection in glioma surgery: a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 12:997–1003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Serra C, Stauffer A, Actor B, Burkhardt JK, Ulrich NH, Bernays RL, Bozinov O (2012) Intraoperative high-frequency ultrasound in intracerebral high-grade tumors. Ultraschall Med (Stuttgart, Germany: 1980) 33:E306–E312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shinkins B, Thompson M, Mallett S, Perera R (2013) Diagnostic accuracy studies: how to report and analyse inconclusive test results. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 346:f2778Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Solheim O, Selbekk T, Jakola A, Unsgård G (2010) Ultrasound-guided operations in unselected high-grade gliomas—overall results, impact of image quality and patient selection. Acta Neurochir 152:1873–1886PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sure U, Benes L, Bozinov O, Woydt M, Tirakotai W, Bertalanffy H (2005) Intraoperative landmarking of vascular anatomy by integration of duplex and Doppler ultrasonography in image-guided surgery. Technical note. Surg Neurol 63:133–141, discussion 141–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Unsgaard G, Gronningsaeter A, Ommedal S, Nagelhus Hernes TA (2002) Brain operations guided by real-time two-dimensional ultrasound: new possibilities as a result of improved image quality. Neurosurgery 51:402–411, discussion 411–402PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yordanova YN, Moritz-Gasser S, Duffau H (2011) Awake surgery for WHO Grade II gliomas within “noneloquent” areas in the left dominant hemisphere: toward a “supratotal” resection. Clin Artic J Neurosurg 115:232–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Wien 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jan Coburger
    • 1
    Email author
  • Angelika Scheuerle
    • 2
  • Dietmar Rudolf Thal
    • 2
  • Jens Engelke
    • 1
  • Michal Hlavac
    • 1
  • Christian R. Wirtz
    • 1
  • Ralph König
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgeryUniversity of UlmGünzburgGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Pathology – Laboratory of Neuropathology, Center for Biomedical ResearchUniversity of UlmGünzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations