Purpose To evaluate the comparability and reproducibility of standardized visual versus region-of-interest (ROI)-based diffusion assessment and their prediction capacity for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status in adult gliomas. Methods Preoperative MRI scans, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), of grade 2–4 adult-type diffuse gliomas (n = 303) were evaluated by three raters and repeated after one month. Visual assessment used the categorization of the Visually AcceSAble Rembrandt Images-feature 17 classes (facilitated, dubious, restricted). ROI-based assessment placed circular ROI on the visually perceived lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) areas (absolute/aADC) and contralateral normal-appearing white matter (normalized/nADC). Agreement and correlation analysis between visual and ROI-based assessments were performed. Logistic regression was conducted for IDH prediction in the subgroup of 99 non-necrotic and non-hemorrhagic cases, selected from the full cohort with available IDH status. Results ROI-based assessment demonstrated superior inter- and intra-rater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient<InlineEquation ID="IEq1"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:\ge\:\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>0.56 (95%-CI: 0.48–0.63)) than visual assessment (Kendall’s W/Cohen’s weighted kappa<InlineEquation ID="IEq2"> <EquationSource Format="TEX">\(\:\ge\:\)</EquationSource> </InlineEquation>0.34 (95%-CI: 0.26–0.42)). Thresholds of 1,090 and 623 × 10−6 mm2/s for aADC, and 1.38 and 0.80 for nADC, distinguishing facilitated, dubious, and restricted diffusion, significantly correlated with visual assessments (P < .001). IDH classification accuracy of visual assessment was comparable to that of the ROI-based method using thresholds of aADC 1,048 × 10− 6 mm2/sn and nADC 1.38 (visual vs. aADC/nADC: 69% vs. 73%/70%). However, neither method achieved a balanced performance between specificity (99% vs. 81%/75%) and sensitivity (14% vs. 57%/61%). Conclusion ROI-based diffusion assessment guided by visual input showed superior reproducibility than visual assessment alone. Although visual assessment demonstrated strong correlation with ADC thresholds and comparable overall IDH prediction accuracy, the two methods differ in clinical profile: visual assessment offered high specificity but low sensitivity, whereas ROI-based assessment improved sensitivity at the cost of reduced specificity.

Visual versus region-of-interest based diffusion evaluation and their diagnostic impact in adult-type diffuse gliomas

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2025年11月8日

查看全文

Aynur Azizova,
Yeva Prysiazhniuk,
Marcus Cakmak,
Elif Kaya,
Jan Petr,
Frederik Barkhof,
Ivar J. H. G. Wamelink,
Vera C. Keil

摘要

Purpose

To evaluate the comparability and reproducibility of standardized visual versus region-of-interest (ROI)-based diffusion assessment and their prediction capacity for isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation status in adult gliomas.

Methods

Preoperative MRI scans, including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), of grade 2–4 adult-type diffuse gliomas (n = 303) were evaluated by three raters and repeated after one month. Visual assessment used the categorization of the Visually AcceSAble Rembrandt Images-feature 17 classes (facilitated, dubious, restricted). ROI-based assessment placed circular ROI on the visually perceived lowest apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) areas (absolute/aADC) and contralateral normal-appearing white matter (normalized/nADC). Agreement and correlation analysis between visual and ROI-based assessments were performed. Logistic regression was conducted for IDH prediction in the subgroup of 99 non-necrotic and non-hemorrhagic cases, selected from the full cohort with available IDH status.

Results

ROI-based assessment demonstrated superior inter- and intra-rater agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient \(\:\ge\:\) 0.56 (95%-CI: 0.48–0.63)) than visual assessment (Kendall’s W/Cohen’s weighted kappa \(\:\ge\:\) 0.34 (95%-CI: 0.26–0.42)). Thresholds of 1,090 and 623 × 10⁻⁶ mm²/s for aADC, and 1.38 and 0.80 for nADC, distinguishing facilitated, dubious, and restricted diffusion, significantly correlated with visual assessments (P < .001). IDH classification accuracy of visual assessment was comparable to that of the ROI-based method using thresholds of aADC 1,048 × 10^− 6 mm²/sn and nADC 1.38 (visual vs. aADC/nADC: 69% vs. 73%/70%). However, neither method achieved a balanced performance between specificity (99% vs. 81%/75%) and sensitivity (14% vs. 57%/61%).

Conclusion

ROI-based diffusion assessment guided by visual input showed superior reproducibility than visual assessment alone. Although visual assessment demonstrated strong correlation with ADC thresholds and comparable overall IDH prediction accuracy, the two methods differ in clinical profile: visual assessment offered high specificity but low sensitivity, whereas ROI-based assessment improved sensitivity at the cost of reduced specificity.