Advertisement

Journal of Neuro-Oncology

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 107–113 | Cite as

Features of diffuse gliomas that are misdiagnosed on initial neuroimaging: a case control study

  • M. D. Maldonado
  • P. Batchala
  • D. Ornan
  • C. Fadul
  • D. Schiff
  • J. N. Itri
  • R. Jain
  • S. H. Patel
Clinical Study

Abstract

Purpose

The neuroimaging diagnosis of diffuse gliomas can be challenging owing to their variable clinical and radiologic presentation. The purpose of this study was to identify factors that are associated with imaging errors in the diagnosis of diffuse gliomas.

Methods

A retrospective case–control analysis was undertaken. 18 misdiagnosed diffuse gliomas on initial neuroimaging (cases) and 108 accurately diagnosed diffuse gliomas on initial neuroimaging (controls) were collected. Clinical, pathological, and imaging metrics were tabulated for each patient. The tabulated metrics were compared between cases and controls to determine factors associated with misdiagnosis.

Results

Cases of misdiagnosed diffuse glioma (vs controls) were more likely to undergo initial triage as a stroke workup [OR 14.429 (95% CI 4.345, 47.915), p < 0.0001], were less likely to enhance [OR 0.283 (95% CI 0.098, 0.812), p = 0.02], were smaller (mean diameter 4.4 vs 6.0 cm, p = 0.0008), produced less midline shift (median midline shift 0.0 vs 2.0 mm, p = 0.003), were less likely to demonstrate necrosis [OR 0.156 (95% CI 0.034–0.713), p = 0.008], and were less likely to have IV contrast administered on the initial MRI [OR 0.100 (95% CI 0.020, 0.494), p = 0.008].

Conclusion

Several clinical and radiologic metrics are associated with diffuse gliomas that are missed or misdiagnosed on the initial neuroimaging study. Knowledge of these associations may aid in avoiding misinterpretation and accurately diagnosing such cases in clinical practice.

Keywords

Diffuse glioma Glioblastoma Diagnostic error MRI CT Neuroimaging 

Abbreviation

IDH

Isocitrate dehydrogenase

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee and 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

The requirement for informed consent was waived by our institutional IRB for this retrospective study of patient data.

Supplementary material

11060_2018_2939_MOESM1_ESM.tif (201 kb)
Supplemental Figure 1: Case and control selection (TIF 201 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Ostrom QT, Bauchet L, Davis FG et al (2014) The epidemiology of glioma in adults: a “state of the science” review. Neuro-Oncology 16(7):896–913CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexander BM, Cloughesy TF (2017) Adult glioblastoma. J Clin Oncol 35(21):2402–2409CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Perry A, Wesseling P (2016) Histologic classification of gliomas. Handb Clin Neurol 134:71–95CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parsons DW, Jones S, Zhang X et al (2008) An integrated genomic analysis of human glioblastoma multiforme. Science 321(5897):1807–1812CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yan H, Parsons DW, Jin G et al (2009) IDH1 and IDH2 mutations in gliomas. N Engl J Med 360(8):765–773CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brat DJ, Verhaak RGW, Aldape KD et al (2015) Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med 372(26):2481–2498CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cancer Genome Atlas Research Network, Brat DJ, Verhaak RG et al. Comprehensive, integrative genomic analysis of diffuse lower-grade gliomas. N Engl J Med 2015;372(26):2481–2498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eckel-Passow JE, Lachance DH, Molinaro AM et al (2015) Glioma groups based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT promoter mutations in tumors. N Engl J Med 372(26):2499–2508CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Louis DN, Perry A, Reifenberger G et al (2016) The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 131(6):803–820CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ceccarelli M, Barthel FP, Malta TM et al (2016) Molecular profiling reveals biologically discrete subsets and pathways of progression in diffuse glioma. Cell 164(3):550–563CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel SH, Poisson LM, Brat DJ et al (2017) T2-FLAIR mismatch, an imaging biomarker for IDH and 1p/19q status in lower-grade glioma: a TCGA/TCIA project. Clin Cancer Res 23:6078–6085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Claes A, Idema AJ, Wesseling P (2007) Diffuse glioma growth: a guerrilla war. Acta Neuropathol 114:443–458CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Upadhyay N, Waldman AD (2011) Conventional MRI evaluation of gliomas. Br J Radiol 84:107–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Villaneuva-Meyer JE, Wood MD, Choi BS et al (2017) MRI features and IDH mutational status of grade II diffuse glioma: impact on diagnosis and prognosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 20:1–8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huisman T (2009) Tumor-like lesions of the brain. Cancer Imaging 9:10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cunliffe CH, Fischer I, Monoky D et al (2009) Intracranial lesions mimicking neoplasms. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:101–123PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Boulter DJ, Schaefer PW (2014) Stroke and stroke mimics: a pattern-based approach. Semin Roentgenol 49(1):22–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Posti JP, Bori M, Kauko T et al (2015) Presenting symptoms of glioma in adults. Acta Neuropathol 131(2):88–93Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    The UK TIA Study Group (1993) Intracranial tumours that mimic transient cerebral ischaemia: lessons learned from a large multicentric trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 56:563–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Li L, Yin J, Li Y et al (2013) Anaplastic astrocytoma masquerading as hemorrhagic stroke. J Clin Neurosci 20(11):1612–1614CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Itri JN, Patel SH (2018) Heuristics and cognitive error in medical imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18907 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211:453–458CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bruno MA, Walker EA, Abujudeh HH (2015) Understanding and confronting our mistakes: the epidemiology of error in radiology and strategies for error reduction. RadioGraphics 35:1668–1676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wurm G, Parsaei B, Silye R et al (2004) Distinct supratentorial lesions mimicking cerebral gliomas. Acta Neurochir 146:19–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. D. Maldonado
    • 1
  • P. Batchala
    • 1
  • D. Ornan
    • 1
  • C. Fadul
    • 2
  • D. Schiff
    • 2
  • J. N. Itri
    • 3
  • R. Jain
    • 4
    • 5
  • S. H. Patel
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology and Medical ImagingUniversity of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA
  2. 2.Division of Neuro-Oncology, Department of NeurologyUniversity of Virginia Health SystemCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyWake Forest Baptist HealthWinston-SalemUSA
  4. 4.Department of RadiologyNYU School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.Department of NeurosurgeryNYU School of MedicineNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations