Addition of Amide Proton Transfer Imaging to FDG-PET/CT Improves Diagnostic Accuracy in Glioma Grading: A Preliminary Study Using the Continuous Net Reclassification Analysis

References

1. 1.↵
   2. Yoon JH,
   3. Kim JH,
   4. Kang WJ, et al

   . Grading of cerebral glioma with multiparametric MR imaging and 18F-FDG-PET: concordance and accuracy. Eur Radiol 2014;24:380–89 doi:10.1007/s00330-013-3019-3 pmid:24078054

   CrossRefPubMed
2. 2.↵
   2. Chung C,
   3. Metser U,
   4. Ménard C

   . Advances in magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography imaging for grading and molecular characterization of glioma. Semin Radiat Oncol 2015;25:164–71 doi:10.1016/j.semradonc.2015.02.002 pmid:26050586

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Bai Y,
   3. Lin Y,
   4. Zhang W, et al

   . Noninvasive amide proton transfer magnetic resonance imaging in evaluating the grading and cellularity of gliomas. Oncotarget 2017;8:5834–42 doi:10.18632/oncotarget.13970 pmid:27992380

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Higano S,
   3. Yun X,
   4. Kumabe T, et al

   . Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 2006;241:839–46 doi:10.1148/radiol.2413051276 pmid:17032910

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
5. 5.↵
   2. Murakami R,
   3. Hirai T,
   4. Sugahara T, et al

   . Grading astrocytic tumors by using apparent diffusion coefficient parameters: superiority of a one- versus two-parameter pilot method. Radiology 2009;251:838–45 doi:10.1148/radiol.2513080899 pmid:19318585

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
6. 6.↵
   2. van Zijl PC,
   3. Yadav NN

   . Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST): what is in a name and what isn't? Magn Reson Med 2011;65:927–48 doi:10.1002/mrm.22761 pmid:21337419

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Zaiss M,
   3. Bachert P

   . Chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) and MR Z-spectroscopy in vivo: a review of theoretical approaches and methods. Phys Med Biol 2013;58:R221–69 doi:10.1088/0031-9155/58/22/R221 pmid:24201125

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Vinogradov E,
   3. Sherry AD,
   4. Lenkinski RE

   . CEST: from basic principles to applications, challenges and opportunities. J Magn Reson 2013;229:155–72 doi:10.1016/j.jmr.2012.11.024 pmid:23273841

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Zhou J,
   3. Payen JF,
   4. Wilson DA, et al

   . Using the amide proton signals of intracellular proteins and peptides to detect pH effects in MRI. Nat Med 2003;9:1085–90 doi:10.1038/nm907 pmid:12872167

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Zhou J,
    3. Lal B,
    4. Wilson DA, et al

    . Amide proton transfer (APT) contrast for imaging of brain tumors. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:1120–26 doi:10.1002/mrm.10651 pmid:14648559

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
11. 11.↵
    2. Togao O,
    3. Yoshiura T,
    4. Keupp J, et al

    . Amide proton transfer imaging of adult diffuse gliomas: correlation with histopathological grades. Neuro Oncol 2014;16:441–48 doi:10.1093/neuonc/not158 pmid:24305718

    CrossRefPubMed
12. 12.↵
    2. Park JE,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Park KJ, et al

    . Histogram analysis of amide proton transfer imaging to identify contrast-enhancing low-grade brain tumor that mimics high-grade tumor: increased accuracy of MR perfusion. Radiology 2015;277:151–61 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142347 pmid:25910226

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Togao O,
    3. Hiwatashi A,
    4. Yamashita K, et al

    . Grading diffuse gliomas without intense contrast enhancement by amide proton transfer MR imaging: comparisons with diffusion- and perfusion-weighted imaging. Eur Radiol 2017;27:578–88 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4328-0 pmid:27003139

    CrossRefPubMed
14. 14.↵
    2. Park JE,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Park KJ, et al

    . Pre- and posttreatment glioma: comparison of amide proton transfer imaging with MR spectroscopy for biomarkers of tumor proliferation. Radiology 2016;278:514–23 doi:10.1148/radiol.2015142979 pmid:26491847

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Sakata A,
    3. Okada T,
    4. Yamamoto A, et al

    . Grading glial tumors with amide proton transfer MR imaging: different analytical approaches. J Neurooncol 2015;122:339–48 doi:10.1007/s11060-014-1715-8 pmid:25559689

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Choi YS,
    3. Ahn SS,
    4. Lee SK, et al

    . Amide proton transfer imaging to discriminate between low- and high-grade gliomas: added value to apparent diffusion coefficient and relative cerebral blood volume. Eur Radiol 2017;27:3181–89 doi:10.1007/s00330-017-4732-0 pmid:28116517

    CrossRefPubMed
17. 17.↵
    2. Ma B,
    3. Blakeley JO,
    4. Hong X, et al

    . Applying amide proton transfer-weighted MRI to distinguish pseudoprogression from true progression in malignant gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:456–62 doi:10.1002/jmri.25159 pmid:26788865

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Park KJ,
    3. Kim HS,
    4. Park JE, et al

    . Added value of amide proton transfer imaging to conventional and perfusion MR imaging for evaluating the treatment response of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Eur Radiol 2016;26:4390–403 doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4261-2 pmid:26883333

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Sagiyama K,
    3. Mashimo T,
    4. Togao O, et al

    . In vivo chemical exchange saturation transfer imaging allows early detection of a therapeutic response in glioblastoma. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2014;111:4542–47 doi:10.1073/pnas.1323855111 pmid:24616497

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Pencina MJ,
    3. D'Agostino RB Sr.,
    4. D'Agostino RB Jr., et al

    . Evaluating the added predictive ability of a new marker: from area under the ROC curve to reclassification and beyond. Stat Med 2008;27:157–72; discussion 207–12 doi:10.1002/sim.2929 pmid:17569110

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
21. 21.↵
    2. Louis DN,
    3. Ohgaki H,
    4. Wiestler OD, et al

    . The 2007 WHO classification of tumours of the central nervous system. Acta Neuropathol 2007;114:97–109 doi:10.1007/s00401-007-0243-4 pmid:17618441

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
22. 22.↵
    2. Sakata A,
    3. Fushimi Y,
    4. Okada T, et al

    . Diagnostic performance between contrast enhancement, proton MR spectroscopy, and amide proton transfer imaging in patients with brain tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;46:732–39 doi:10.1002/jmri.25597 pmid:28252822

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Schmitt B,
    3. Zaiss M,
    4. Zhou J, et al

    . Optimization of pulse train presaturation for CEST imaging in clinical scanners. Magn Reson Med 2011;65:1620–29 doi:10.1002/mrm.22750 pmid:21337418

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Yamashita K,
    3. Yoshiura T,
    4. Hiwatashi A, et al

    . Differentiating primary CNS lymphoma from glioblastoma multiforme: assessment using arterial spin labeling, diffusion-weighted imaging, and ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography. Neuroradiology 2013;55:135–43 doi:10.1007/s00234-012-1089-6 pmid:22961074

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Manabe O,
    3. Hattori N,
    4. Yamaguchi S, et al

    . Oligodendroglial component complicates the prediction of tumour grading with metabolic imaging. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2015;42:896–904 doi:10.1007/s00259-015-2996-7 pmid:25647076

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Landis JR,
    3. Koch GG

    . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977;33:159–74 doi:10.2307/2529310 pmid:843571

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
27. 27.↵
    2. DeLong ER,
    3. DeLong DM,
    4. Clarke-Pearson DL

    . Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837–45 doi:10.2307/2531595 pmid:3203132

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Schmidt H,
    3. Schwenzer NF,
    4. Gatidis S, et al

    . Systematic evaluation of amide proton chemical exchange saturation transfer at 3T: effects of protein concentration, pH, and acquisition parameters. Invest Radiol 2016;51:635–46 doi:10.1097/RLI.0000000000000292 pmid:27272542

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Sun PZ,
    3. Wang E,
    4. Cheung JS

    . Imaging acute ischemic tissue acidosis with pH-sensitive endogenous amide proton transfer (APT) MRI: correction of tissue relaxation and concomitant RF irradiation effects toward mapping quantitative cerebral tissue pH. Neuroimage 2012;60:1–6 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.091 pmid:22178815

    CrossRefPubMed
30. 30.↵
    2. Fudaba H,
    3. Shimomura T,
    4. Abe T, et al

    . Comparison of multiple parameters obtained on 3T pulsed arterial spin-labeling, diffusion tensor imaging, and MRS and the Ki-67 labeling index in evaluating glioma grading. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:2091–98 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4018 pmid:24994829

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
31. 31.↵
    2. Server A,
    3. Kulle B,
    4. Gadmar ØB, et al

    . Measurements of diagnostic examination performance using quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the preoperative evaluation of tumor grade in cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiol 2011;80:462–70 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.07.017 pmid:20708868

    CrossRefPubMed
32. 32.↵
    2. Nguyen TB,
    3. Cron GO,
    4. Perdrizet K, et al

    . Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of DSC- and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in the preoperative grading of astrocytomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:2017–22 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4398 pmid:26228886

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
33. 33.↵
    2. Halligan S,
    3. Altman DG,
    4. Mallett S

    . Disadvantages of using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve to assess imaging tests: a discussion and proposal for an alternative approach. Eur Radiol 2015;25:932–39 doi:10.1007/s00330-014-3487-0 pmid:25599932

    CrossRefPubMed
34. 34.↵
    2. Rutjes A,
    3. Reitsma J,
    4. Coomarasamy A, et al

    . Evaluation of diagnostic tests when there is no gold standard: a review of methods. Health Technol Assess 2007;11:iii, ix–51 pmid:18021577

    PubMed
35. 35.↵
    2. Collins VP,
    3. Jones DT,
    4. Giannini C

    . Pilocytic astrocytoma: pathology, molecular mechanisms and markers. Acta Neuropathol 2015;129:775–88 doi:10.1007/s00401-015-1410-7 pmid:25792358

    CrossRefPubMed
36. 36.↵
    2. de Fatima Vasco Aragao M,
    3. Law M,
    4. Batista de Almeida D, et al

    . Comparison of perfusion, diffusion, and MR spectroscopy between low-grade enhancing pilocytic astrocytomas and high-grade astrocytomas. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2014;35:1495–502 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A3905 pmid:24699088

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
37. 37.↵
    2. Eckel-Passow JE,
    3. Lachance DH,
    4. Molinaro AM, et al

    . Glioma groups based on 1p/19q, IDH, and TERT promoter mutations in tumors. N Engl J Med 2015;372:2499–508 doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1407279 pmid:26061753

    CrossRefPubMed
38. 38.↵
    2. Koschmann C,
    3. Calinescu AA,
    4. Nunez FJ, et al

    . ATRX loss promotes tumor growth and impairs nonhomologous end joining DNA repair in glioma. Sci Transl Med 2016;8:328ra28 doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.aac8228 pmid:26936505

    Abstract/FREE Full Text