Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Journal of Child Science 2020; 10(01): e169-e174
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718897
Original Article

The Effects of Applying Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Parameters on the Differentiation between Fourth Ventricular Ependymoma and Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma

Nguyen Minh Duc 
1   Department of Radiology, Hanoi Medical University, Hanoi, Vietnam
2   Department of Radiology, Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
3   Department of Radiology, Children's Hospital 02, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Distinguishing the fourth ventricular ependymoma from diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) is essential to improve the treatment strategy between these two tumor types. We attempted to evaluate the effects of applying apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values to the distinction between pediatric fourth ventricular ependymomas and DIPGs. Brain magnetic resonance imaging, including diffusion-weighted imaging and ADC, was assessed in 26 patients, who were divided into two groups: group 1 included 8 patients with fourth ventricular ependymoma and group 2 included 18 patients with DIPG. The Mann–Whitney U test was utilized to compare tumoral maximum (ADCmax), minimum ADC (ADCmin), mean ADC (ADCmean), and standard deviation (ADCsd) values, and the ratios between the tumor and parenchyma values for each of these parameters (rADCmax, rADCmin, rADCmean, and rADCsd, respectively) between the two groups. Cutoff values were calculated based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and the Youden index, and the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity were determined. The median ADCmax, ADCmin, ADCmean, rADCmax, rADCmin, and rADCmean values were significantly lower in group 1 than in group 2 (p < 0.05). For the differential diagnosis of ependymomas and DIPGs, a cutoff ADCmean value of 1.02 × 10−3 mm2/s was determined, which produced a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 88.9%, and an AUC of 95.8%. ADC parameters should be considered when performing a differential diagnosis between fourth ventricular ependymomas and DIPGs. Based on our findings, a cutoff ADCmean value of 1.02 × 10−3 mm2/s was the most significant and effective parameter for this purpose.

Keywords

fourth ventricular ependymoma - diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma - magnetic resonance imaging - apparent diffusion coefficient

Ethical Approval and Declaration of Patient Consent

Institutional review board of Children's Hospital 2 approved this prospective study (Ref: 352/NĐ2-CĐT). Written informed consent was obtained from the legal guardian of all participating patients.


Data Availability

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.




Publication History

Received: 25 July 2020

Accepted: 20 September 2020

Article published online:
27 October 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Stuttgart · New York

 

  • References

  • 1 Ostrom QT, de Blank PM, Kruchko C. et al. Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation infant and childhood primary brain and central nervous system tumors diagnosed in the United States in 2007-2011. Neuro-oncol 2015; 16 (Suppl. 10) x1-x36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Duc NM, Huy HQ, Nadarajan C, Keserci B. The role of predictive model based on quantitative basic magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating medulloblastoma from ependymoma. Anticancer Res 2020; 40 (05) 2975-2980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Kasliwal MK, Agrawal D. Intrinsic brainstem glioma mimicking an ependymoma. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39 (11) 1250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Thakar S, Mohan D, Furtado SV, Ghosal N, Hegde AS. An anaplastic ependymoma presenting as an intrinsic brainstem glioma. Neurol India 2012; 60 (01) 131-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jallo GI, Biser-Rohrbaugh A, Freed D. Brainstem gliomas. Childs Nerv Syst 2004; 20 (03) 143-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tonn JC, Reardon DA, Rutka JT, Westphal M. Oncology of CNS Tumors. 3rd edition. Switzerland AG: Springer Nature ; 2019: 527-528
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Koob M, Girard N. Cerebral tumors: specific features in children. Diagn Interv Imaging 2014; 95 (10) 965-983
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Poretti A, Meoded A, Huisman TA. Neuroimaging of pediatric posterior fossa tumors including review of the literature. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35 (01) 32-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rumboldt Z, Camacho DL, Lake D, Welsh CT, Castillo M. Apparent diffusion coefficients for differentiation of cerebellar tumors in children. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006; 27 (06) 1362-1369
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Esa MMM, Mashaly EM, El-Sawaf YF, Dawoud MM. Diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient ratio in distinguishing common pediatric CNS posterior fossa tumors. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020; 51: 76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Yamasaki F, Kurisu K, Satoh K. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of human brain tumors at MR imaging. Radiology 2005; 235 (03) 985-991
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zitouni S, Koc G, Doganay S. et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiation of pediatric posterior fossa tumors. Jpn J Radiol 2017; 35 (08) 448-453
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Duc NM, Huy HQ. Magnetic resonance imaging features of common posterior fossa brain tumors in children: a preliminary Vietnamese study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019; 7 (15) 2413-2418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Schumacher M, Schulte-Mönting J, Stoeter P, Warmuth-Metz M, Solymosi L. Magnetic resonance imaging compared with biopsy in the diagnosis of brainstem diseases of childhood: a multicenter review. J Neurosurg 2007; 106 (02) 111-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Albright AL. Diffuse brainstem tumors: when is a biopsy necessary?. Pediatr Neurosurg 1996; 24 (05) 252-255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Chen HJ, Panigrahy A, Dhall G, Finlay JL, Nelson Jr MD, Blüml S. Apparent diffusion and fractional anisotropy of diffuse intrinsic brain stem gliomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31 (10) 1879-1885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Duc NM. The role of diffusion tensor imaging metrics in the discrimination between cerebellar medulloblastoma and brainstem glioma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2020; 67: e28468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lober RM, Cho YJ, Tang Y. et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI derived apparent diffusion coefficient identifies prognostically distinct subgroups of pediatric diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma. J Neurooncol 2014; 117 (01) 175-182
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Jaremko JL, Jans LB, Coleman LT, Ditchfield MR. Value and limitations of diffusion-weighted imaging in grading and diagnosis of pediatric posterior fossa tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010; 31 (09) 1613-1616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Duc NM, Huy HQ, Bang MTL. et al. Clinical applications of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging Med 2018; 10: 79-84
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Duc NM. The effect of semi-quantitative T1-perfusion parameters for the differentiation between pediatric medulloblastoma and ependymoma. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020; 51: 109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar