Comparative Analysis of Diffusional Kurtosis Imaging, Diffusion Tensor Imaging, and Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Grading and Assessing Cellular Proliferation of Meningiomas

REFERENCES

1. 1.↵
   2. Riemenschneider MJ,
   3. Perry A,
   4. Reifenberger G

   . Histological classification and molecular genetics of meningiomas. Lancet Neurol 2006;5:1045–54 doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(06)70625-1 pmid:17110285

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
2. 2.↵
   2. Louis DN,
   3. Perry A,
   4. Reifenberger G, et al

   . The 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System: a summary. Acta Neuropathol 2016;131:803–20 doi:10.1007/s00401-016-1545-1 pmid:27157931

   CrossRefPubMed
3. 3.↵
   2. Tang Y,
   3. Dundamadappa SK,
   4. Thangasamy S, et al

   . Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient with Ki-67 proliferation index in grading meningioma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:1303–08 doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11637 pmid:24848829

   CrossRefPubMed
4. 4.↵
   2. Abry E,
   3. Thomassen IØ,
   4. Salvesen ØO, et al

   . The significance of Ki-67/MIB-1 labeling index in human meningiomas: a literature study. Pathol Res Pract 2010;206:810–15 doi:10.1016/j.prp.2010.09.002 pmid:20951502

   CrossRefPubMed
5. 5.↵
   2. Lin BJ,
   3. Chou KN,
   4. Kao HW, et al

   . Correlation between magnetic resonance imaging grading and pathological grading in meningioma. J Neurosurg 2014;121:1201–08 doi:10.3171/2014.7.JNS132359 pmid:25148010

   CrossRefPubMed
6. 6.↵
   2. Watanabe Y,
   3. Yamasaki F,
   4. Kajiwara Y, et al

   . Preoperative histological grading of meningiomas using apparent diffusion coefficient at 3T MRI. Eur J Radiol 2013;82:658–63 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.037 pmid:23313707

   CrossRefPubMed
7. 7.↵
   2. Yiping L,
   3. Kawai S,
   4. Jianbo W, et al

   . Evaluation parameters between intra-voxel incoherent motion and diffusion-weighted imaging in grading and differentiating histological subtypes of meningioma: a prospective pilot study. J Neurol Sci 2017;15 372:60–69 doi:10.1016/j.jns.2016.11.037 pmid:28017250

   CrossRefPubMed
8. 8.↵
   2. Sanverdi SE,
   3. Ozgen B,
   4. Oguz KK, et al

   . Is diffusion-weighted imaging useful in grading and differentiating histopathological subtypes of meningiomas? Eur J Radiol 2012;81:2389–95 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.06.031 pmid:21723681

   CrossRefPubMed
9. 9.↵
   2. Yamasaki F,
   3. Kurisu K,
   4. Satoh K, et al

   . Apparent diffusion coefficient of human brain tumors at MR imaging. Radiology 2005;235:985–91 doi:10.1148/radiol.2353031338 pmid:15833979

   CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
10. 10.↵
    2. Baskan O,
    3. Silav G,
    4. Bolukbasi FH, et al

    . Relation of apparent diffusion coefficient with Ki-67 proliferation index in meningiomas. Br J Radiol 2016;89:20140842 doi:10.1259/bjr.20140842 pmid:26537690

    CrossRefPubMed
11. 11.↵
    2. Van Cauter S,
    3. Veraart J,
    4. Sijbers J, et al

    . Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 2012;263:492–501 doi:10.1148/radiol.12110927 pmid:22403168

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
12. 12.↵
    2. Surov A,
    3. Gottschling S,
    4. Mawrin C, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging in meningioma: prediction of tumor grade and association with histopathological parameters. Transl Oncol 2015;8:517–23 doi:10.1016/j.tranon.2015.11.012 pmid:26692534

    CrossRefPubMed
13. 13.↵
    2. Poot DH,
    3. den Dekker AJ,
    4. Achten E, et al

    . Optimal experimental design for diffusion kurtosis imaging. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2010;29:819–29 doi:10.1109/TMI.2009.2037915 pmid:20199917

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
14. 14.↵
    2. Tan Y,
    3. Wang XC,
    4. Zhang H, et al

    . Differentiation of high-grade-astrocytomas from solitary-brain-metastases: comparing diffusion kurtosis imaging and diffusion tensor imaging. Eur J Radiol 2015;84:2618–24 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.10.007 pmid:26482747

    CrossRefPubMed
15. 15.↵
    2. Pang H,
    3. Ren Y,
    4. Dang X, et al

    . Diffusional kurtosis imaging for differentiating between high-grade glioma and primary central nervous system lymphoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:30–40 doi:10.1002/jmri.25090 pmid:26588793

    CrossRefPubMed
16. 16.↵
    2. Tietze A,
    3. Hansen MB,
    4. Østergaard L, et al

    . Mean diffusional kurtosis in patients with glioma: initial results with a fast imaging method in a clinical setting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2015;36:1472–78 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A4311 pmid:25977481

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
17. 17.↵
    2. Jiang R,
    3. Jiang J,
    4. Zhao L, et al

    . Diffusion kurtosis imaging can efficiently assess the glioma grade and cellular proliferation. Oncotarget 2015;6:42380–93 doi:10.18632/oncotarget.5675 pmid:26544514

    CrossRefPubMed
18. 18.↵
    2. Wang S,
    3. Kim S,
    4. Zhang Y, et al

    . Determination of grade and subtype of meningiomas by using histogram analysis of diffusion-tensor imaging metrics. Radiology 2012;262:584–92 doi:10.1148/radiol.11110576 pmid:22084207

    CrossRefPubMed
19. 19.↵
    2. Toh CH,
    3. Castillo M,
    4. Wong AM, et al

    . Differentiation between classic and atypical meningiomas with use of diffusion tensor imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1630–35 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A1170 pmid:18583409

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
20. 20.↵
    2. Zikou A,
    3. Alexiou GA,
    4. Goussia A, et al

    . The role of diffusion tensor imaging and dynamic susceptibility perfusion MRI in the evaluation of meningioma grade and subtype. Clin Neurol Neurosurg 2016;146:109–15 doi:10.1016/j.clineuro.2016.05.005 pmid:27208870

    CrossRefPubMed
21. 21.↵
    2. Santelli L,
    3. Ramondo G,
    4. Della Puppa A, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted imaging does not predict histological grading in meningiomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 2010;152:1315–19; discussion 1319 doi:10.1007/s00701-010-0657-y pmid:20428902

    CrossRefPubMed
22. 22.↵
    2. Jolapara M,
    3. Kesavadas C,
    4. Radhakrishnan VV, et al

    . Role of diffusion tensor imaging in differentiating subtypes of meningiomas. J Neuroradiol 2010;37:277–83 doi:10.1016/j.neurad.2010.03.001 pmid:20381865

    CrossRefPubMed
23. 23.↵
    2. Lu H,
    3. Jensen JH,
    4. Ramani A, et al

    . Three-dimensional characterization of non-Gaussian water diffusion in humans using diffusion kurtosis imaging. NMR Biomed 2006;19:236–47 doi:10.1002/nbm.1020 pmid:16521095

    CrossRefPubMed
24. 24.↵
    2. Szczepankiewicz F,
    3. van Westen D,
    4. Englund E, et al

    . The link between diffusion MRI and tumor heterogeneity: mapping cell eccentricity and density by diffusional variance decomposition (DIVIDE). Neuroimage 2016;142:522–32 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.038 pmid:27450666

    CrossRefPubMed
25. 25.↵
    2. Xing F,
    3. Tu N,
    4. Koh TS, et al

    . MR diffusion kurtosis imaging predicts malignant potential and the histological type of meningioma. Eur J Radiol 2017;95:286–92 doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.08.019 pmid:28987682

    CrossRefPubMed
26. 26.↵
    2. Nagar VA,
    3. Ye JR,
    4. Ng WH, et al

    . Diffusion-weighted MR imaging: diagnosing atypical or malignant meningiomas and detecting tumor dedifferentiation. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:1147–52 doi:10.3174/ajnr.A0996 pmid:18356472

    Abstract/FREE Full Text
27. 27.↵
    2. Modha A,
    3. Gutin PH

    . Diagnosis and treatment of atypical and anaplastic meningiomas: a review. Neurosurgery 2005;57:538–50; discussion 538–50 doi:10.1227/01.NEU.0000170980.47582.A5 pmid:16145534

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
28. 28.↵
    2. Zhuo J,
    3. Xu S,
    4. Proctor JL, et al

    . Diffusion kurtosis as an in vivo imaging marker for reactive astrogliosis in traumatic brain injury. Neuroimage 2012;59:467–77 doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.07.050 pmid:21835250

    CrossRefPubMed
29. 29.↵
    2. Steven AJ,
    3. Zhuo J,
    4. Melhem ER

    . Diffusion kurtosis imaging: an emerging technique for evaluating the microstructural environment of the brain. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;202:W26–33 doi:10.2214/AJR.13.11365 pmid:24370162

    CrossRefPubMedWeb of Science