A Comparative Study of 2 Different Segmentation Methods of ADC Histogram for Differentiation Genetic Subtypes in Lower-Grade Diffuse Gliomas

Abstract EN

Background.

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) histogram parameters for differentiating the genetic subtypes in lower-grade diffuse gliomas and explore which segmentation method (ROI-1, the entire tumor ROI; ROI2, the tumor ROI excluding cystic and necrotic portions) performs better.

Materials and Methods.

We retrospectively evaluated 56 lower-grade diffuse gliomas and divided them into three categories: IDH-wild group (IDHwt, 16cases); IDH mutant with the intact 1p or 19q group (IDHmut/1p19q+, 18cases); and IDH mutant with the 1p/19q codeleted group (IDHmut/1p19q−, 22cases).

Histogram parameters of ADC maps calculated with the two different ROI methods: ADCmean, min, max, mode, P5, P10, P25, P75, P90, P95, kurtosis, skewness, entropy, StDev, and inhomogenity were compared between these categories using the independent t test or Mann–Whitney U test.

For statistically significant results, a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed, and the optimal cutoff value was determined by maximizing Youden’s index.

Area under the curve (AUC) results were compared using the method of Delong et al.

Results.

The inhomogenity from the two different ROI methods for distinguishing IDHwt gliomas from IDHmut gliomas both showed the biggest AUC (0.788, 0.930), the optimal cutoff value was 0.229 (sensitivity, 81.3%; specificity, 75.0%) for the ROI-1 and 0.186 (sensitivity, 93.8%; specificity, 82.5%) for the ROI-2, and the AUC of the inhomogenity from the ROI-2 was significantly larger than that from another segmentation, but no significant differences were identified between the AUCs of other same parameters from the two different ROI methods.

For the differentiaiton of IDHmut/1p19q− tumors and IDHmut/1p19q+ tumors, with the ROI-1, the ADCmode showed the biggest AUC (AUC: 0.784; sensitivity, 61.1%; specificity, 90.9%), with the ROI-2, and the skewness performed best (AUC, 0.821; sensitivity, 81.8%; specificity, 77.8%), but no significant differences were identified between the AUCs of the same parameters from the two different ROI methods.

Conclusion.

ADC values analyzed by the histogram method could help to classify the genetic subtypes in lower-grade diffuse gliomas, no matter which ROI method was used.

Extracting cystic and necrotic portions from the entire tumor lesions is preferable for evaluating the difference of the intratumoral heterogeneity and classifying IDH-wild tumors, but not significantly beneficial to predicting the 1p19q genotype in the lower-grade gliomas.