American Journal of Neuroradiology 21:1213-1219 (7 2000)
© 2000 American Society of Neuroradiology
ARTICLE
Discrimination between Neoplastic and Nonneoplastic Brain Lesions by Use of Proton MR Spectroscopy: The Limits of Accuracy with a Logistic Regression Model
a From the Departments of Radiology, Biophysics (J.B., R.P., V.C., K.D., R.N., W.B., S-J.L., V.H., L.M., T.K., W.M., G.M., H.K., S.R.), Neurosurgery (W.M., G.M.), and Neurology (H.K.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the Department of Family Practice (V.K.C.), University of Illinois College of Medicine at Rockford, Rockford, Illinois; Department of Radiology (V.H.), University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin; and the Department of Radiology (T.K.), University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The most accurate method of clinical MR spectroscopy (MRS) interpretation remains an open question. We sought to construct a logistic regression (LR) pattern recognition model for the discrimination of neoplastic from nonneoplastic brain lesions with MR imaging–guided single-voxel proton MRS data. We compared the LR sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve area (Az) with the sensitivity and specificity of blinded and unblinded qualitative MRS interpretations and a choline (Cho)/N-acetylaspartate (NAA) amplitude ratio criterion.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with suspected brain neoplasms or recurrent neoplasia referred for MRS were enrolled once final diagnoses were established by histopathologic examination or serial neurologic examinations, laboratory data, and imaging studies. Control spectra from healthy adult volunteers were included. An LR model was constructed with 10 input variables, including seven metabolite resonance amplitudes, unsuppressed brain water content, water line width, and the final diagnosis (neoplasm versus nonneoplasm). The LR model output was the probability of tumor, for which a cutoff value was chosen to obtain comparable sensitivity and specificity. The LR sensitivity and specificity were compared with those of qualitative blinded interpretations from two readers (designated A and B), qualitative unblinded interpretations (in aggregate) from a group of five staff neuroradiologists and a spectroscopist, and a quantitative Cho/NAA amplitude ratio > 1 threshold for tumor. Sensitivities and specificities for each method were compared with McNemar's chi square analysis for binary tests and matched data with a significance level of 5%. ROC analyses were performed where possible, and Az values were compared with Metz's method (CORROC2) with a 5% significance level.
RESULTS: Of the 99 cases enrolled, 86 had neoplasms and 13 had nonneoplastic diagnoses. The discrimination of neoplastic from control spectra was trivial with the LR, reflecting high homogeneity among the control spectra. An LR cutoff probability for tumor of 0.8 yielded a specificity of 87%, a comparable sensitivity of 85%, and an area under the ROC curve of 0.96. Sensitivities, specificities, and ROC areas (where available) for the other methods were, on average, 82%, 74%, and 0.82, respectively, for readers A and B, 89% (sensitivity) and 92% (specificity) for the group of unblinded readers, and 79% (sensitivity), 77% (specificity), and 0.84 (Az) for the Cho/NAA > 1 criterion. McNemar's analysis yielded significant differences in sensitivity (n
86 neoplasms) between the LR and reader A, and between the LR and the Cho/NAA > 1 criterion. The differences in specificity between the LR and all other methods were not significant (n13 nonneoplasms). Metz's analysis revealed a significant difference in Az between the LR and the Cho/NAA ratio criterion.
CONCLUSION: The upper limits of sensitivity, specificity, and ROC area achieved in the construction of the LR model with MRS data demonstrate the potential for improved discrimination of neoplasm from nonneoplasm relative to either qualitative MRS interpretation by blinded readers or by quantitative interpretation with a Cho/NAA amplitude ratio threshold. The sensitivity, specificity, and ROC curve area of the LR were comparable to unblinded MRS readers who had the benefit of prior imaging studies and clinical data.
This article has been cited by other articles:
 |
|
 |
|
  C. Majos, C. Aguilera, J. Alonso, M. Julia-Sape, S. Castaner, J.J. Sanchez, A. Samitier, A. Leon, A. Rovira, and C. Arus Proton MR Spectroscopy Improves Discrimination between Tumor and Pseudotumoral Lesion in Solid Brain Masses AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., March 1, 2009; 30(3): 544 - 551. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Hourani, L.J. Brant, T. Rizk, J.D. Weingart, P.B. Barker, and A. Horska Can Proton MR Spectroscopic and Perfusion Imaging Differentiate Between Neoplastic and Nonneoplastic Brain Lesions in Adults? AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., February 1, 2008; 29(2): 366 - 372. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. N. Al-Okaili, J. Krejza, J. H. Woo, R. L. Wolf, D. M. O'Rourke, K. D. Judy, H. Poptani, and E. R. Melhem Intraaxial Brain Masses: MR Imaging-based Diagnostic Strategy--Initial Experience Radiology, May 1, 2007; 243(2): 539 - 550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. N. Al-Okaili, J. Krejza, S. Wang, J. H. Woo, and E. R. Melhem Advanced MR Imaging Techniques in the Diagnosis of Intraaxial Brain Tumors in Adults RadioGraphics, October 1, 2006; 26(suppl_1): S173 - S189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Hollingworth, L.S. Medina, R.E. Lenkinski, D.K. Shibata, B. Bernal, D. Zurakowski, B. Comstock, and J.G. Jarvik A Systematic Literature Review of Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy for the Characterization of Brain Tumors AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., August 1, 2006; 27(7): 1404 - 1411. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. C. Hockaday, S. Shen, J. Fiveash, A. Raubitschek, D. Colcher, A. Liu, V. Alvarez, and A. N. Mamelak Imaging Glioma Extent with 131I-TM-601 J. Nucl. Med., April 1, 2005; 46(4): 580 - 586. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Mazumdar Group Sequential Design for Comparative Diagnostic Accuracy Studies: Implications and Guidelines for Practitioners Med Decis Making, October 1, 2004; 24(5): 525 - 533. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Law, S. Yang, H. Wang, J. S. Babb, G. Johnson, S. Cha, E. A. Knopp, and D. Zagzag Glioma Grading: Sensitivity, Specificity, and Predictive Values of Perfusion MR Imaging and Proton MR Spectroscopic Imaging Compared with Conventional MR Imaging AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., November 1, 2003; 24(10): 1989 - 1998. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. Bulakbasi, M. Kocaoglu, F. Ors, C. Tayfun, and T. Ucoz Combination of Single-Voxel Proton MR Spectroscopy and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Calculation in the Evaluation of Common Brain Tumors AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol., February 1, 2003; 24(2): 225 - 233. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|