Automated Quantitative Analysis of Enhancing and Peritumoral Cerebral Blood Volume for Differentiating Glioblastoma From Central Nervous System Lymphoma.
2/5 보강
OpenAlex 토픽 ·
Glioma Diagnosis and Treatment
CNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Brain Metastases and Treatment
[OBJECTIVE] To quantitatively compare cerebral blood volume (CBV) in contrast-enhancing tumor areas and nonenhancing peritumoral fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense regions betwee
- 표본수 (n) 22
- p-value P<0.0001
- p-value P=0.029
APA
Kazuhiro Murayama, Shohei Harada, et al. (2026). Automated Quantitative Analysis of Enhancing and Peritumoral Cerebral Blood Volume for Differentiating Glioblastoma From Central Nervous System Lymphoma.. Journal of computer assisted tomography. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000001871
MLA
Kazuhiro Murayama, et al.. "Automated Quantitative Analysis of Enhancing and Peritumoral Cerebral Blood Volume for Differentiating Glioblastoma From Central Nervous System Lymphoma.." Journal of computer assisted tomography, 2026.
PMID
42030475 ↗
Abstract 한글 요약
[OBJECTIVE] To quantitatively compare cerebral blood volume (CBV) in contrast-enhancing tumor areas and nonenhancing peritumoral fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) hyperintense regions between glioblastoma and central nervous system lymphoma (CNSL), and to assess the incremental diagnostic value of peritumoral CBV beyond enhancing tumor CBV.
[METHODS] The study included 34 patients with histopathologically confirmed glioblastoma (n=22) or CNSL (n=12) who underwent pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging, including FLAIR, dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging. Automated regions of interest (ROIs) were defined for enhancement areas (EAs) and nonenhancing peritumoral FLAIR abnormalities (PFAs). Quantitative indices included the median CBV within EAs (CBVEA) and the 95th percentile CBV within PFAs (CBVPFA). Intergroup differences were assessed, and diagnostic performance was evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models incorporating CBVEA and CBVPFA, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and likelihood ratio testing (LRT).
[RESULTS] Both CBVEA and CBVPFA were significantly higher in the glioblastoma group than in the CNSL group [CBVEA: 4.90 (4.14-5.58) vs. 2.84 (2.04-3.21) mL/100 g, P<0.0001, CBVPFA: 5.67 (3.75-8.08) vs. 4.10 (3.00-5.23) mL/100 g; P=0.029]. CBVEA showed the highest discriminatory performance in univariate analysis, whereas CBVPFA demonstrated a more modest association with tumor type. Although the AUC of the combined model was not significantly different from that of the CBVEA model alone [CBVEA: 0.913 (0.816-1.000) vs. combined model: 0.932 (0.848-1.000), P=0.602], the combined model showed a significant improvement in model fit according to LRT (χ2=4.1, P=0.043).
[CONCLUSIONS] Automated ROI-based analysis demonstrated significant differences in peritumoral CBV between glioblastoma and CNSL, and adding peritumoral CBV to the logistic regression model significantly improved overall model fit for differentiating between these entities beyond enhancing tumor CBV alone.
[METHODS] The study included 34 patients with histopathologically confirmed glioblastoma (n=22) or CNSL (n=12) who underwent pretreatment magnetic resonance imaging, including FLAIR, dynamic susceptibility contrast perfusion imaging, and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted imaging. Automated regions of interest (ROIs) were defined for enhancement areas (EAs) and nonenhancing peritumoral FLAIR abnormalities (PFAs). Quantitative indices included the median CBV within EAs (CBVEA) and the 95th percentile CBV within PFAs (CBVPFA). Intergroup differences were assessed, and diagnostic performance was evaluated using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models incorporating CBVEA and CBVPFA, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and likelihood ratio testing (LRT).
[RESULTS] Both CBVEA and CBVPFA were significantly higher in the glioblastoma group than in the CNSL group [CBVEA: 4.90 (4.14-5.58) vs. 2.84 (2.04-3.21) mL/100 g, P<0.0001, CBVPFA: 5.67 (3.75-8.08) vs. 4.10 (3.00-5.23) mL/100 g; P=0.029]. CBVEA showed the highest discriminatory performance in univariate analysis, whereas CBVPFA demonstrated a more modest association with tumor type. Although the AUC of the combined model was not significantly different from that of the CBVEA model alone [CBVEA: 0.913 (0.816-1.000) vs. combined model: 0.932 (0.848-1.000), P=0.602], the combined model showed a significant improvement in model fit according to LRT (χ2=4.1, P=0.043).
[CONCLUSIONS] Automated ROI-based analysis demonstrated significant differences in peritumoral CBV between glioblastoma and CNSL, and adding peritumoral CBV to the logistic regression model significantly improved overall model fit for differentiating between these entities beyond enhancing tumor CBV alone.
🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만
🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반
- Overcoming Chemoresistance in Glioblastoma: Mechanisms, Therapeutic Strategies, and Functional Precision Medicine.
- Multifocal anaplastic astrocytoma mimicking primary central nervous system lymphoma: A case report.
- Global economic differences in modern glioblastoma care - a systematic review.
- Visual Disturbance and Elevated Glutamic Acid Decarboxylase Antibody Levels as Manifestations of Central Nervous System Lymphoma.
- The Role of CRISPR and Its Therapeutic Applications in Glioblastoma.
- Engineering polysaccharide nanoplatforms for glioblastoma theranostics: Bridging targeted therapy and advanced imaging.