Comparative analysis of intraoperative MRI and early postoperative MRI findings in glioma surgery patients.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Yoshihiro Otani, Fumiyo Higaki, Kentaro Fujii, Joji Ishida, Yosuke Shimazu, Shuichiro Hirano, Naoya Kemmotsu, Yasuki Suruga, Ryoji Imoto, Ryo Mizuta, Yasuhito Kegoya, Yohei Inoue, Tsuyoshi Umeda, Madoka Hokama, Takao Yasuhara, Takao Hiraki, Kazuhiko Kurozumi, Tomotsugu Ichikawa, Shota Tanaka, Isao Date
{"title":"Comparative analysis of intraoperative MRI and early postoperative MRI findings in glioma surgery patients.","authors":"Yoshihiro Otani, Fumiyo Higaki, Kentaro Fujii, Joji Ishida, Yosuke Shimazu, Shuichiro Hirano, Naoya Kemmotsu, Yasuki Suruga, Ryoji Imoto, Ryo Mizuta, Yasuhito Kegoya, Yohei Inoue, Tsuyoshi Umeda, Madoka Hokama, Takao Yasuhara, Takao Hiraki, Kazuhiko Kurozumi, Tomotsugu Ichikawa, Shota Tanaka, Isao Date","doi":"10.3171/2024.7.JNS24784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The extent of resection (EOR) is an important prognostic factor for both low- and high-grade gliomas. Intraoperative MRI (iMRI) has been used to increase the EOR in glioma surgery. While a recent study reported differences between iMRI and early postoperative MRI (epMRI), their specific relationship to postoperative clinical symptoms remains unclear. This study aims to compare the differences between iMRI and epMRI in glioma surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective assessment was conducted on 43 patients with glioma who underwent surgery with iMRI and for whom no additional resection was performed after iMRI. The study evaluated the discrepancies in EOR, surgically induced contrast enhancement (SICE), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) abnormality between iMRI and epMRI. EOR was defined as gross-total resection (GTR), near-total resection, subtotal resection (STR), or partial resection (PR) for enhancing lesions, and GTR, STR, or PR for nonenhancing lesions. In addition, the relationship between postoperative neurological findings and iMRI findings was evaluated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Discrepancies in EOR were observed in 2 (11.1%) of 18 cases with nonenhanced lesions and 1 (4.0%) of 25 cases with enhanced lesions. The positive rate of SICE was 25.0% on iMRI and 67.9% on epMRI. Enhancement at the resection cavity was the most frequent pattern in both iMRI and epMRI. The positive rate of enhancement of the resection cavity was strongly increased on epMRI compared with iMRI, potentially mimicking residual tumor. The positive rate of DWI abnormality was 73% on iMRI and 89.2% on epMRI. Among the 10 patients who showed no DWI abnormality on iMRI, 6 exhibited DWI abnormality on epMRI (the late-developing group). Two patients developed new neurological deficits postoperatively, and both showed DWI abnormality on both iMRI and epMRI. No patient in the late-developing group developed postoperative neurological deficits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, iMRI demonstrated more accurate EOR and less SICE compared with epMRI. Although the positive rate of DWI abnormality was lower on iMRI than on epMRI, the late-developing group showed no postoperative neurological deficits. Therefore, iMRI is more useful in assessing accurate EOR and detecting postoperative neurological deficits than epMRI.</p>","PeriodicalId":16505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.7.JNS24784","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The extent of resection (EOR) is an important prognostic factor for both low- and high-grade gliomas. Intraoperative MRI (iMRI) has been used to increase the EOR in glioma surgery. While a recent study reported differences between iMRI and early postoperative MRI (epMRI), their specific relationship to postoperative clinical symptoms remains unclear. This study aims to compare the differences between iMRI and epMRI in glioma surgery.

Methods: A retrospective assessment was conducted on 43 patients with glioma who underwent surgery with iMRI and for whom no additional resection was performed after iMRI. The study evaluated the discrepancies in EOR, surgically induced contrast enhancement (SICE), and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) abnormality between iMRI and epMRI. EOR was defined as gross-total resection (GTR), near-total resection, subtotal resection (STR), or partial resection (PR) for enhancing lesions, and GTR, STR, or PR for nonenhancing lesions. In addition, the relationship between postoperative neurological findings and iMRI findings was evaluated.

Results: Discrepancies in EOR were observed in 2 (11.1%) of 18 cases with nonenhanced lesions and 1 (4.0%) of 25 cases with enhanced lesions. The positive rate of SICE was 25.0% on iMRI and 67.9% on epMRI. Enhancement at the resection cavity was the most frequent pattern in both iMRI and epMRI. The positive rate of enhancement of the resection cavity was strongly increased on epMRI compared with iMRI, potentially mimicking residual tumor. The positive rate of DWI abnormality was 73% on iMRI and 89.2% on epMRI. Among the 10 patients who showed no DWI abnormality on iMRI, 6 exhibited DWI abnormality on epMRI (the late-developing group). Two patients developed new neurological deficits postoperatively, and both showed DWI abnormality on both iMRI and epMRI. No patient in the late-developing group developed postoperative neurological deficits.

Conclusions: Overall, iMRI demonstrated more accurate EOR and less SICE compared with epMRI. Although the positive rate of DWI abnormality was lower on iMRI than on epMRI, the late-developing group showed no postoperative neurological deficits. Therefore, iMRI is more useful in assessing accurate EOR and detecting postoperative neurological deficits than epMRI.

胶质瘤手术患者术中MRI与术后早期MRI表现的比较分析。
目的:切除程度(EOR)是判断低级别和高级别胶质瘤预后的重要因素。术中MRI (iMRI)已被用于提高胶质瘤手术的EOR。虽然最近的一项研究报告了iMRI和术后早期MRI (epMRI)之间的差异,但它们与术后临床症状的具体关系尚不清楚。本研究旨在比较iMRI和epMRI在胶质瘤手术中的差异。方法:对43例脑胶质瘤患者进行回顾性评估,这些患者在iMRI手术后没有进行额外的切除。本研究评估了iMRI和epMRI在EOR、手术诱导对比增强(SICE)和弥散加权成像(DWI)异常方面的差异。EOR定义为强化病灶的总全切除(GTR)、近全切除、次全切除(STR)或部分切除(PR),非强化病灶的GTR、STR或PR。此外,还评估了术后神经学表现与iMRI表现之间的关系。结果:18例非强化病灶中有2例(11.1%)EOR差异,25例强化病灶中有1例(4.0%)EOR差异。SICE在iMRI和epMRI上的阳性率分别为25.0%和67.9%。在切除腔增强是最常见的模式在iMRI和epMRI。与iMRI相比,epMRI上切除腔增强的阳性率明显增加,可能模仿残余肿瘤。DWI异常在iMRI和epMRI上的阳性率分别为73%和89.2%。10例iMRI无DWI异常的患者中,有6例epMRI有DWI异常(迟发组)。2例患者术后出现新的神经功能缺损,iMRI和epMRI均显示DWI异常。晚发组无患者出现术后神经功能缺损。结论:总体而言,与epMRI相比,iMRI显示了更准确的EOR和更少的SICE。虽然iMRI上DWI异常的阳性率低于epMRI,但迟发组术后无神经功能缺损。因此,与epMRI相比,iMRI在准确评估EOR和检测术后神经功能缺损方面更有用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery
Journal of neurosurgery 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
7.30%
发文量
1003
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics, and Neurosurgical Focus are devoted to the publication of original works relating primarily to neurosurgery, including studies in clinical neurophysiology, organic neurology, ophthalmology, radiology, pathology, and molecular biology. The Editors and Editorial Boards encourage submission of clinical and laboratory studies. Other manuscripts accepted for review include technical notes on instruments or equipment that are innovative or useful to clinicians and researchers in the field of neuroscience; papers describing unusual cases; manuscripts on historical persons or events related to neurosurgery; and in Neurosurgical Focus, occasional reviews. Letters to the Editor commenting on articles recently published in the Journal of Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine, and Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics are welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信