Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 6;22(11):1647–1657. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noaa140

Table 3.

Baseline imaging characteristics in 357 DIPGs

Imaging Feature N % Cases* Note
Tumor Extension
 No extension beyond pons 15 4.2
 Cerebellum 85 23.8
 Midbrain 245 68.6
 Thalami 25 7.0
 Medulla 260 72.8
 Internal capsule 24 6.7
 Brachium pontis 284 79.6
 Extension beyond pons and BP 319 89.4
% pons involved
 1–33% 1 0.3
 34–66% 21 5.9
 67–100% 335 93.8
 <50% 3 0.8
 >50% 354 99.2
Tumor Morphology
 Margin (well-defined) 15 4.2
 Eccentric 50 14.0
 Exophytic 229 64.1
 Heterogeneity (marked) 54 15.1
 Atypical features but likely DIPG 92 25.8
Tumor Signal
 T1 hypointense/T2 hyperintense 336 95.7 351 with both T1 and T2 sequences
 T2 hypointensity (any) 189 53.2 2 missing T2 sequence
 Non-necrotic T2 hyperintensity (any) 128 36.1 2 missing T2 sequence
 Stripes visible 251 70.5 1 incomplete data
Enhancement
 Enhancement (any) 239 68.9 of 347 that had contrast
 Homogeneous 2 0.8 of 239 that had enhancement
 Ring enhancement 122 51.5 of 239 that had enhancement
 Patchy enhancement 162 67.4 of 239 that had enhancement
 Patchy and ring enhancement 46 19.2 of 239 that had enhancement
Diffusion/Hemorrhage/Necrosis
 Diffusion restriction (any) 184 63.2 of 291 with diffusion sequence
 Hemorrhage (any) 102 28.6
 Hemorrhage (> minimal) 40 11.2
 Hemorrhage (any, GRE/SWI) 73 50.0 of 146 with SWI or GRE sequence
 Hemorrhage (>minimal.,GRE/SWI) 31 21.2 of 146 with SWI or GRE sequence
 Necrosis (any) 156 43.6
 Necrosis + ring enhancement 118 34.0 of 347 that had contrast
 Necrosis with no ring enhancement 37 10.7 of 347 that had contrast
Spectroscopy
 NAA/Cr (decreased) 66 75.0 of 88 with spectroscopy
 Cho/Cr (increased) 74 84.1 of 88 with spectroscopy
 Cho/NAA (increased) 75 85.2 of 88 with spectroscopy
 mI/Cr (increased) 34 41.0 of 83 with assessable mI
 Lactate present 56 64.4 of 87 with assessable lactate
Other Features
 Hydrocephalus 79 22.1
 Subependymal signal 78 21.8 *see note
 Distant disease 11 3.1 of 357 cases
 Distant disease (spine available) 9 6.8 of 133 with spine imaging

* 26 subjects with no hydrocephalus had subependymal signal, 52 subjects with hydrocephalus had subependymal signal.