Glioblastoma Multiforme versus Solitary Supratentorial Brain Metastasis: Differentiation Based on Morphology and Magnetic Resonance Signal Characteristics

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic potential of a multi-factor analysis of morphometric parameters and magnetic resonance (MR) signal characteristics of a mass and peritumoral area to distinguish solitary supratentorial metastasis from glioblastoma multiforme (GBM).

Materials and Methods: MR examinations of 51 patients with histologically proven GBM and 44 with a single supratentorial metastasis were evaluated. A large variety of morphologic criteria and MR signal characteristics in different sequences were analyzed. The data were subjected to logistic regression to investigate their ability to discriminate between GBM and cerebral metastasis. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to select an optimal cut-off point for prediction and to assess the predictive value in terms of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the final model.

Results: The logistic regression analysis revealed that the ratio of the maximum diameter of the peritumoral area measured on T2-weighted images (d T2) to the maximum diameter of the enhancing mass area (d T1, post-contrast) is the only useful criterion to distinguish single supratentorial brain metastasis from GBM with a lower ratio favoring GBM (accuracy 68 %, sensitivity 84 % and specificity 45 %). The cut-off point for the ratio d T2/d T1 post-contrast was calculated as 2.35.

Conclusion: Measurement of maximum diameters of the peritumoral area in relation to the enhancing mass can be evaluated easily in the clinical routine to discriminate GBM from solitary supratentorial metastasis with an accuracy comparable to that of advanced MRI techniques.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Evaluation der diagnostischen Wertigkeit einer multifaktoriellen Analyse zur Differenzierung solitärer supratentorieller Hirnmetastasen von einem Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) unter Berücksichtigung morphologischer Parameter und magnetresonanztomografischer Signalcharakteristika der Tumormasse und der peritumoralen Zone.

Material und Methoden: Magnetresonanztomografie(MRT)-Untersuchungen von 51 Patienten mit einem jeweils histologisch gesicherten GBM und 44 Patienten mit einer singulären supratentoriellen Hirnmetastase wurden evaluiert. Hierbei wurde eine Vielzahl morphologischer Kriterien und MRT-Signalcharakteristika in verschiedenen Sequenzen analysiert. Mittels einer logistischen Regressionsanalyse wurde die Wertigkeit der verschiedenen Kriterien zur Differenzierung zwischen einem GBM und einer singulären Metastase untersucht. Mit einer Receiver-Operating-Characteristics(ROC)-Analyse wurde ein optimaler Schwellenwert zur Vorhersage ermittelt unter Berücksichtigung der Sensitivität, Spezifität und Genauigkeit des finalen Modells.

Ergebnisse: Die logistische Regressionsanalyse ergab, dass das Verhältnis des maximalen Durchmessers des peritumoralen Areals in T2-gewichteten Sequenzen (d T2) im Verhältnis mit dem maximalen Durchmesser der kontrastmittelaufnehmenden Tumormasse (d T1, post contrast) das einzige dienliche Kriterium zur Differenzierung einer singulären supratentoriellen Metastase von einem GBM darstellt (Genauigkeit 68 %, Sensitivität 84 % und Spezifität 45 %). Der Schwellenwert für das Verhältnis d T2/d T1, post contrast betrug 2,35.

Schlussfolgerung: Das Verhältnis aus den maximalen Durchmessern des peritumoralen Areals und der kontrastmittelaufnehmenden Tumormasse kann in der klinischen Routine einfach erfasst werden und ermöglicht bei der Differenzierung von singulären Hirnmetastasen und GBM eine Genauigkeit ähnlich derjenigen neuester MRT-Techniken.

Key words

glioblastoma multiforme - brain metastases - multi-factor analysis - morphologic criteria - magnetic resonance imaging

• References

• 1 Louis DN, Ohgaki H, Wiestler OD et al. The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007; 114: 97-109
• 2 Giese A, Westphal M. Treatment of malignant glioma: a problem beyond the margins of resection. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 2001; 127: 217-225
• 3 Claes A, Idema AJ, Wesseling P. Diffuse glioma growth: a guerilla war. Acta Neuropathol 2007; 114: 443-458
• 4 Peters S, Knoss N, Wodarg F et al. Glioblastomas vs. Lymphomas: More Diagnostic Certainty by Using Susceptibility-Weighted Imaging (SWI). Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 713-718
• 5 Mönninghoff C, Maderwald S, Theysohn JM et al. Imaging of brain metastases of bronchial carcinomas with 7 T MRI – initial results. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 764-772
• 6 Devos A, Lukas L, Suykens JA et al. Classification of brain tumours using short echo time 1H MR spectra. J Magn Reson 2004; 170: 164-175
• 7 Opstad KS, Murphy MM, Wilkins PR et al. Differentiation of metastases from high-grade gliomas using short echo time 1H spectroscopy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004; 20: 187-192
• 8 Chiang IC, Kuo YT, Lu CY et al. Distinction between high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases using peritumoral 3-T magnetic resonance spectroscopy, diffusion, and perfusion imagings. Neuroradiology 2004; 46: 619-627
• 9 Lu S, Ahn D, Johnson G et al. Peritumoral diffusion tensor imaging of high-grade gliomas and metastatic brain tumors. Am J Neuroradiol 2003; 24: 937-941
• 10 Law M, Cha S, Knopp EA et al. High-grade gliomas and solitary metastases: differentiation by using perfusion and proton spectroscopic MR imaging. Radiology 2002; 222: 715-721
• 11 Cho SK, Na DG, Ryoo JW et al. Perfusion MR imaging: clinical utility for the differential diagnosis of various brain tumors. Korean J Radiol 2002; 3: 171-179
• 12 Tang YM, Ngai S, Stuckey S. The solitary enhancing cerebral lesion: can FLAIR aid the differentiation between glioma and metastasis?. Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 609-611
• 13 Stuckey SL, Wijedeera R. Multicentric/multifocal cerebral lesions: can fluid-attenuated inversion recovery aid the differentiation between glioma and metastases?. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2008; 52: 134-139
• 14 Young GS. Advanced MRI of adult brain tumors. Neurol Clin 2007; 25: 947-973
• 15 Korn A, Braun C, Fenchel M et al. Bildgebendes MRT-Response-Monitoring bei Glioblastoma multiforme während der Therapie mit Bevacizumab. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2012; 184: 397-401
• 16 Duygulu G, Ovali GY, Calli C et al. Intracerebral metastasis showing restricted diffusion: correlation with histopathologic findings. Eur J Radiol 2010; 74: 117-120
• 17 Barnard RO, Geddes JF. The incidence of multifocal cerebral gliomas. A histologic study of large hemisphere sections. Cancer 1987; 60: 1519-1531
• 18 Schiff D. Single Brain Metastasis. Curr Treat Options Neurol 2001; 3: 89-99
• 19 Sze G, Milano E, Johnson C et al. Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT. Am J Neuroradiol 1990; 11: 785-791
• 20 Bernstein M, Parrent AG. Complications of CT-guided stereotactic biopsy of intra-axial brain lesions. J Neurosurg 1994; 81: 165-168
• 21 Gaviani P, Mullins ME, Braga TA et al. Improved detection of metastatic melanoma by T2*-weighted imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27: 605-608
• 22 Zhang M, Olsson Y. Hematogenous metastases of the human brain – characteristics of peritumoral brain changes: a review. J Neurooncol 1997; 35: 81-89
• 23 Lehmann P, Saliou G, de Marco G et al. Cerebral peritumoral oedema study: Does a single dynamic MR sequence assessing perfusion and permeability can help to differentiate glioblastoma from metastasis?. Eur J Radiol 2011; Feb 18 Epub ahead of print
• 24 Ringelstein A, Turowski B, Gizewski ER et al. Evaluation des ADC-Mappings als Prädiktor für ein Ansprechen von Glioblastomrezidiven auf eine Therapie mit Avastin. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 868-872 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1245570.
• 25 Essig M, Knopp MV, Schoenberg SO et al. Cerebral gliomas and metastases: assessment with contrast-enhanced fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 210: 551-557
• 26 Ercan N, Gultekin S, Celik H et al. Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced fluid-attenuated inversion recovery MR imaging of intracranial metastases. Am J Neuroradiol 2004; 25: 761-765
• 27 Mathews VP, Caldemeyer KS, Lowe MJ et al. Brain: gadolinium-enhanced fast fluid-attenuated inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 211: 257-263
• 28 Yuh WT, Tali ET, Nguyen HD et al. The effect of contrast dose, imaging time, and lesion size in the MR detection of intracerebral metastasis. Am J Neuroradiol 1995; 16: 373-380
• 29 Engelhorn T, Schwarz MA, Eyupoglu IY et al. Dynamic contrast enhancement of experimental glioma an intra-individual comparative study to assess the optimal time delay. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 188-193
• 30 Schneider G, Kirchin MA, Pirovano G et al. Gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of intracranial metastases: effect of dose on lesion detection and delineation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001; 14: 525-539
• 31 Kim ES, Chang JH, Choi HS et al. Diagnostic yield of double-dose gadobutrol in the detection of brain metastasis: intraindividual comparison with double-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine. Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31: 1055-1058
• 32 Ba-Ssalamah A, Nöbauer-Huhmann IM, Pinker K et al. Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol 2003; 38: 415-422
• 33 Cha S, Lupo JM, Chen MH et al. Differentiation of glioblastoma multiforme and single brain metastasis by peak height and percentage of signal intensity recovery derived from dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced perfusion MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2007; 28: 1078-1084
• 34 Wang S, Kim S, Chawla S et al. Differentiation between glioblastomas, solitary brain metastases, and primary cerebral lymphomas using diffusion tensor and dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Am J Neuroradiol 2011; 32: 507-514 DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A2333.
• 35 Byrnes TJ, Barrick TR, Bell BA et al. Diffusion tensor imaging discriminates between glioblastoma and cerebral metastases in vivo. NMR in biomedicine 2011; 24: 54-60 DOI: 10.1002/nbm.1555.