Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging derived maps may distinguish between low and high grade gliomas before surgery

  • Neuro
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

To investigate the value of histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) maps in the evaluation of glioma grading.

Methods

A total of 39 glioma patients who underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were classified into low-grade (13 cases) and high-grade (26 cases) glioma groups. Parametric DKI maps were derived, and histogram metrics between low- and high-grade gliomas were analysed. The optimum diagnostic thresholds of the parameters, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were achieved using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC).

Result

Significant differences were observed not only in 12 metrics of histogram DKI parameters (P<0.05), but also in mean diffusivity (MD) and mean kurtosis (MK) values, including age as a covariate (F=19.127, P<0.001 and F=20.894, P<0.001, respectively), between low- and high-grade gliomas. Mean MK was the best independent predictor of differentiating glioma grades (B=18.934, 22.237 adjusted for age, P<0.05). The partial correlation coefficient between fractional anisotropy (FA) and kurtosis fractional anisotropy (KFA) was 0.675 (P<0.001). The AUC of the mean MK, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.925, 88.5% and 84.6%, respectively.

Conclusions

DKI parameters can effectively distinguish between low- and high-grade gliomas. Mean MK is the best independent predictor of differentiating glioma grades.

Key points

• DKI is a new and important method.

• DKI can provide additional information on microstructural architecture.

• Histogram analysis of DKI may be more effective in glioma grading.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AD:

axial diffusivity

AK:

axial kurtosis

AUC:

area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

CBTRUS:

Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States

CNS:

central nervous system

DKE:

Diffusion Kurtosis Estimator

DKI:

diffusion kurtosis imaging

DTI:

diffusion tensor imaging

DWI:

diffusion weighted imaging

FA:

fractional anisotropy

FDT:

FMRIB's Diffusion Toolbox

FWHM:

full width at half maximum

KFA:

kurtosis fractional anisotropy

MD:

mean diffusivity

MK:

mean kurtosis

MRI:

magnetic resonance imaging

NPV:

negative predictive value

RD:

radial diffusivity

RK:

radial kurtosis

WHO:

World Health Organization

References

  1. Ostrom QT, Gittleman H, Liao P et al (2014) CBTRUS statistical report: primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007-2011. Neuro Oncol 16:iv1–iv63

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. 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 131:803–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexiou GA, Zikou A, Tsiouris S et al (2014) Correlation of diffusion tensor, dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI and (99m)Tc-Tetrofosmin brain SPECT with tumour grade and Ki-67 immunohistochemistry in glioma. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 116:41–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Jakab A, Molnár P, Emri M, Berényi E (2011) Glioma grade assessment by using histogram analysis of diffusion tensor imaging-derived maps. Neuroradiology 53:483–491

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jiang R, Jiang J, Zhao L et al (2015) Diffusion kurtosis imaging can efficiently assess the glioma grade and cellular proliferation. Oncotarget 6:42380–42393

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Xiao HF, Chen ZY, Lou X et al (2015) Astrocytic tumour grading: a comparative study of three-dimensional pseudocontinuous arterial spin labelling, dynamic susceptibility contrast-enhanced perfusion-weighted imaging, and diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol 25:3423–3430

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu X, Tian W, Kolar B et al (2011) MR diffusion tensor and perfusion-weighted imaging in preoperative grading of supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas. Neuro Oncol 13:447–455

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Jensen JH, Helpern JA (2010) MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis. Biomedicine 23:698–710

    Google Scholar 

  9. Tabesh A, Jensen JH, Ardekani BA, Helpern JA (2011) Estimation of tensors and tensor-derived measures in diffusional kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 65:823–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Raab P, Hattingen E, Franz K, Zanella FE, Lanfermann H (2010) Cerebral gliomas: diffusional kurtosis imaging analysis of microstructural differences. Radiology 254:876–881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Hui ES, Cheung MM, Qi L et al (2008) Towards better MR characterization of neural tissues using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis. NeuroImage 42:122–134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J et al (2012) Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 263:492–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Just N (2014) Improving tumour heterogeneity MRI assessment with histograms. Br J Cancer 111:2205–2213

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kyriazi S, Collins DJ, Messiou C et al (2011) Metastatic ovarian and primary peritoneal cancer: assessing chemotherapy response with diffusion-weighted MR imaging--value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficients. Radiology 261:182–192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Suo S, Zhang K, Cao M et al (2016) Characterization of breast masses as benign or malignant at 3.0T MRI with whole-lesion histogram analysis of the apparent diffusion coefficient. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:894–902

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wang S, Kim S, Zhang Y et al (2012) Determination of grade and subtype of meningiomas by using histogram analysis of diffusion-tensor imaging metrics. Radiology 262:584–592

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Xu XQ, Hu H, Su GY et al (2016) Utility of histogram analysis of ADC maps for differentiating orbital tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol 22:161–167

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Jensen JH, Falangola MF, Hu C et al (2011) Preliminary observations of increased diffusional kurtosis in human brain following recent cerebral infarction. Biomedicine 24:452–457

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lee J, Choi SH, Kim JH et al (2014) Glioma grading using apparent diffusion coefficient map: application of histogram analysis based on automatic segmentation. NMR Biomed 27:1046–105220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Arevalo-Perez J, Peck KK, Young RJ et al (2015) Dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging in grading of gliomas. J Neuroimaging 25:792–798

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. van Cauter S, de Keyzer F, Sima DM et al (2014) Integrating diffusion kurtosis imaging, dynamic susceptibility-weighted contrast-enhanced MRI, and short echo time chemical shift imaging for grading gliomas. Neuro-Oncology 16:1010–1021

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Chen SD, Hou PF, Lou L, Jin X, Wang TH, Xu JL (2014) The correlation between MR diffusion-weighted imaging and pathological grades on glioma. Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci 18:1904–1909

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kang Y, Choi SH, Kim YJ et al (2011) Gliomas: Histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging--correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 261:882–890

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Beppu T, Inoue T, Shibata Y et al (2003) Measurement of fractional anisotropy using diffusion tensor MRI in supratentorial astrocytic tumors. J Neuro-Oncol 63:109–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wu EX, Cheung MM (2010) MR diffusion kurtosis imaging for neural tissue characterization. NMR Biomed 23:836–848

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tietze A, Hansen MB, Østergaard L et al (2015) Mean diffusional kurtosis in patients with glioma: initial results with a fast imaging method in a clinical setting. Am J Neuroradiol 36:1472–1478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bai Y, Lin Y, Tian J et al (2016) Grading of gliomas by using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging and diffusion kurtosis MR imaging. Radiology 278:496–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Qi C, Yang S, Meng L et al (2017) Evaluation of cerebral glioma using 3T diffusion kurtosis tensor imaging and the relationship between diffusion kurtosis metrics and tumor cellularity. J Int Med Res 45:1347–1358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Falangola MF, Jensen JH, Babb JS et al (2008) Age-related non-Gaussian diffusion patterns in the prefrontal brain. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:1345–1350

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Glenn GR, Helpern JA, Tabesh A, Jensen JH (2015) Quantitative assessment of diffusional kurtosis anisotropy. Biomedicine 28:448–459

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hansen B, Jespersen SN (2016) Kurtosis fractional anisotropy, its contrast and estimation by proxy. Sci Rep 6:23999

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Stadlbauer A, Ganslandt O, Buslei R et al (2006) Gliomas: histopathologic evaluation of changes in directionality and magnitude of water diffusion at diffusion-tensor MR imaging. Radiology 240:803–810

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has received funding by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 81101035).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Xi-Xun Qi and Da-Fa Shi are co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China

    Xi-Xun Qi, Su-Ya Zhang & Li-Ming Guan

  2. Department of Radiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Yangtze University, Jingzhou, 434000, China

    Da-Fa Shi

  3. Department of Radiology, Chengdu Second People’s Hospital, Chengdu, 610000, China

    Si-Xie Ren

  4. Department of Neurosurgery, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China

    Long Li

  5. Department of Pathology, First Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110001, China

    Qing-Chang Li

Authors
  1. Xi-Xun Qi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Da-Fa Shi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Si-Xie Ren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Su-Ya Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Long Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Qing-Chang Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Li-Ming Guan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Li-Ming Guan.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Xu Ke.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because all patients had signed the hospitalised informed consents.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because the study does not involve ethical issues.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qi, XX., Shi, DF., Ren, SX. et al. Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging derived maps may distinguish between low and high grade gliomas before surgery. Eur Radiol 28, 1748–1755 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5108-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5108-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation