• Medientyp: E-Artikel
  • Titel: Accuracy of central neuro-imaging review of DIPG compared with histopathology in the International DIPG Registry
  • Beteiligte: Lazow, Margot A; Fuller, Christine; DeWire, Mariko; Lane, Adam; Bandopadhayay, Pratiti; Bartels, Ute; Bouffet, Eric; Cheng, Sylvia; Cohen, Kenneth J; Cooney, Tabitha M; Coven, Scott L; Dholaria, Hetal; Diez, Blanca; Dorris, Kathleen; El-ayadi, Moatasem; El-Sheikh, Ayman; Fisher, Paul G; Fonseca, Adriana; Garcia Lombardi, Mercedes; Greiner, Robert J; Goldman, Stewart; Gottardo, Nicholas; Gururangan, Sridharan; Hansford, Jordan R; [...]
  • Erschienen: Oxford University Press (OUP), 2022
  • Erschienen in: Neuro-Oncology
  • Sprache: Englisch
  • DOI: 10.1093/neuonc/noab245
  • ISSN: 1522-8517; 1523-5866
  • Entstehung:
  • Anmerkungen:
  • Beschreibung: <jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Background</jats:title> <jats:p>Diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) remains a clinico-radiologic diagnosis without routine tissue acquisition. Reliable imaging distinction between DIPG and other pontine tumors with potentially more favorable prognoses and treatment considerations is essential.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Methods</jats:title> <jats:p>Cases submitted to the International DIPG registry (IDIPGR) with histopathologic and/or radiologic data were analyzed. Central imaging review was performed on diagnostic brain MRIs (if available) by two neuro-radiologists. Imaging features suggestive of alternative diagnoses included nonpontine origin, &amp;lt;50% pontine involvement, focally exophytic morphology, sharply defined margins, and/or marked diffusion restriction throughout.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Results</jats:title> <jats:p>Among 286 patients with pathology from biopsy and/or autopsy, 23 (8%) had histologic diagnoses inconsistent with DIPG, most commonly nondiffuse low-grade gliomas and embryonal tumors. Among 569 patients with centrally-reviewed diagnostic MRIs, 40 (7%) were classified as non-DIPG, alternative diagnosis suspected. The combined analysis included 151 patients with both histopathology and centrally-reviewed MRI. Of 77 patients with imaging classified as characteristic of DIPG, 76 (99%) had histopathologic diagnoses consistent with DIPG (infiltrating grade II-IV gliomas). Of 57 patients classified as likely DIPG with some unusual imaging features, 55 (96%) had histopathologic diagnoses consistent with DIPG. Of 17 patients with imaging features suggestive of an alternative diagnosis, eight (47%) had histopathologic diagnoses inconsistent with DIPG (remaining patients were excluded due to nonpontine tumor origin). Association between central neuro-imaging review impression and histopathology was significant (p &amp;lt; 0.001), and central neuro-imaging impression was prognostic of overall survival.</jats:p> </jats:sec> <jats:sec> <jats:title>Conclusions</jats:title> <jats:p>The accuracy and important role of central neuro-imaging review in confirming the diagnosis of DIPG is demonstrated.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
  • Zugangsstatus: Freier Zugang