Back to Search Start Over

Accuracy of central neuro-imaging review of DIPG compared with histopathology in the International DIPG Registry

Authors :
Jane E. Minturn
Ayman El-Sheikh
Gustavo Sevlever
Michelle Monje-Deisseroth
Hetal Dholaria
Karen Tsui
Maryam Fouladi
Pratiti Bandopadhayay
Cynthia Hawkins
Scott L Coven
Lindsay Kilburn
Christopher L. Tinkle
David S. Ziegler
Eric Sandler
Yvan Samson
Jordan R. Hansford
Eric Bouffet
Sylvia Cheng
Sridharan Gururangan
Kathleen Dorris
Tim Hassall
Mohamed S. Zaghloul
Carl Koschmann
Sarah Leary
Mercedes Garcia Lombardi
Blaise V. Jones
Paul G. Fisher
Anthony Asher
Rachid Drissi
Blanca Diez
Kenneth J. Cohen
Jie Ma
Adriana Fonseca
Katie Black
Nicholas G. Gottardo
Stewart Goldman
Christine E. Fuller
Tabitha Cooney
Moatasem El-Ayadi
Adam Lane
Brooklyn Chaney
Mariko DeWire
Robert J. Greiner
Ute Bartels
Margot A Lazow
James L. Leach
Lars M. Wagner
Roger J. Packer
Source :
Neuro Oncol
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
Oxford University Press (OUP), 2021.

Abstract

Background 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. Methods 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, Results 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 < 0.001), and central neuro-imaging impression was prognostic of overall survival. Conclusions The accuracy and important role of central neuro-imaging review in confirming the diagnosis of DIPG is demonstrated.

Details

ISSN :
15235866 and 15228517
Volume :
24
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Neuro-Oncology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....1eb93f7f10aea819afa4cbaa267e360e