Dataset Information

Optimal presentation modes for detecting brain tumor progression.

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

A common task in radiology interpretation is visual comparison of images. The purpose of this study was to compare traditional side-by-side and in-place (flicker) image presentation modes with advanced methods for detecting primary brain tumors on MR imaging.

Materials and methods

We identified 66 patients with gliomas and 3 consecutive brain MR imaging examinations (a "triplet"). A display application that presented images in side-by-side mode with or without flicker display as well as display of image subtraction or automated change detection information (also with and without flicker display) was used by 3 board-certified neuroradiologists. They identified regions of brain tumor progression by using this display application. Each case was reviewed using all modes (side-by-side presentation with and without flicker, subtraction with and without flicker, and change detection with and without flicker), with results compared via a panel rating.

Results

Automated change detection with or without flicker (P < .0027) as well as subtraction with or without flicker (P < .0027) were more sensitive to tumor progression than side-by-side presentation in cases where all 3 raters agreed. Change detection afforded the highest interrater agreement, followed by subtraction. Clinically determined time to progression was longer for cases rated as nonprogressing by using subtraction images and change-detection images both with and without flicker display mode compared with side-by-side presentation.

Conclusions

Automated change detection and image subtraction, with and without flicker display mode, are superior to side-by-side image comparison.

SUBMITTER: Erickson BJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3909498 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Frascati international research criteria for HIV-associated neurocognitive disorders (HAND) are controversial; some investigators have argued that Frascati criteria are too liberal, resulting in a high false positive rate. Meyer et al. recommended more conservative revisions to HAND criteria, including exploring other commonly used methodologies for neurocognitive impairment (NCI) in HIV including the global deficit score (GDS). This study compares NCI classifications by Frascati, Meyer, and GDS methods, in relation to neuroimaging markers of brain integrity in HIV. METHOD:Two hundred forty-one people living with HIV (PLWH) without current substance use disorder or severe (confounding) comorbid conditions underwent comprehensive neurocognitive testing and brain structural magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Participants were classified using Frascati criteria versus Meyer criteria: concordant unimpaired [Frascati(Un)/Meyer(Un)], concordant impaired [Frascati(Imp)/Meyer(Imp)], or discordant [Frascati(Imp)/Meyer(Un)] which were impaired via Frascati criteria but unimpaired via Meyer criteria. To investigate the GDS versus Meyer criteria, the same groupings were utilized using GDS criteria instead of Frascati criteria. RESULTS:When examining Frascati versus Meyer criteria, discordant Frascati(Imp)/Meyer(Un) individuals had less cortical gray matter, greater sulcal cerebrospinal fluid volume, and greater evidence of neuroinflammation (i.e., choline) than concordant Frascati(Un)/Meyer(Un) individuals. GDS versus Meyer comparisons indicated that discordant GDS(Imp)/Meyer(Un) individuals had less cortical gray matter and lower levels of energy metabolism (i.e., creatine) than concordant GDS(Un)/Meyer(Un) individuals. In both sets of analyses, the discordant group did not differ from the concordant impaired group on any neuroimaging measure. CONCLUSIONS:The Meyer criteria failed to capture a substantial portion of PLWH with brain abnormalities. These findings support continued use of Frascati or GDS criteria to detect HIV-associated CNS dysfunction.

Project description:Malignant gliomas can be counted to the most devastating tumors in humans. Novel therapies do not achieve significant prolonged survival rates. The cancer cells have an impact on the surrounding vital tissue and form tumor zones, which make up the tumor microenvironment. We investigated the effects of sunitinib, a small molecule multitargeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, on constituents of the tumor microenvironment such as gliomas, astrocytes, endothelial cells, and neurons. Sunitinib has a known anti-angiogenic effect. We found that sunitinib normalizes the aberrant tumor-derived vasculature and reduces tumor vessel pathologies (i.e. auto-loops). Sunitinib has only minor effects on the normal, physiological, non-proliferating vasculature. We found that neurons and astrocytes are protected by sunitinib against glutamate-induced cell death, whereas sunitinib acts as a toxin towards proliferating endothelial cells and tumor vessels. Moreover, sunitinib is effective in inducing glioma cell death. We determined the underlying pathways by which sunitinib operates as a toxin on gliomas and found vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2, KDR/Flk1) as the main target to execute gliomatoxicity. The apoptosis-inducing effect of sunitinib can be mimicked by inhibition of VEGFR2. Knockdown of VEGFR2 can, in part, foster the resistance of glioma cells to receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Furthermore, sunitinib alleviates tumor-induced neurodegeneration. Hence, we tested whether temozolomide treatment could be potentiated by sunitinib application. Here we show that sunitinib can amplify the effects of temozolomide in glioma cells. Thus, our data indicate that combined treatment with temozolomide does not abrogate the effects of sunitinib. In conclusion, we found that sunitinib acts as a gliomatoxic agent and at the same time carries out neuroprotective effects, reducing tumor-induced neurodegeneration. Thus, this report uncovered sunitinib's actions on the brain tumor microenvironment, revealing novel aspects for adjuvant approaches and new clinical assessment criteria when applied to brain tumor patients.