Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):e0247899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247899

The diagnostic function of intravoxel incoherent motion for distinguishing between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma

Nguyen Minh Duc 1,2,3,*
Editor: Quan Jiang4
PMCID: PMC7920344  PMID: 33647051

Abstract

Introduction

Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging concurrently measures diffusion and perfusion parameters and has potential applications for brain tumor classification. However, the effectiveness of IVIM for the differentiation between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma has not been verified. The aim of this study was to determine the potential diagnostic role of IVIM for the distinction between ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma.

Methods

Between February 2019 and October 2020, 22 children (15 males and 7 females; median age 4 years) with either ependymoma or pilocytic astrocytoma were recruited for this prospective study. IVIM parameters were fitted using 7 b-values (0–1,500 s/mm2), to develop a bi-exponential model. The diffusivity (D), perfusion fraction (f), and pseudo diffusivity (D*) were measured in both tumors and the adjacent normal-appearing parenchyma. These IVIM parameters were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was employed to assess diagnostic performance.

Results

The median D values for ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma were 0.87 and 1.25 × 10−3 mm2/s (p < 0.05), respectively, whereas the f values were 0.11% and 0.15% (p < 0.05). The ratios of the median D values for ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma relative to the median D values for the adjacent, normal-appearing parenchyma were 1.45 and 2.10 (p < 0.05), respectively. ROC curve analysis found that the D value had the best diagnostic performance for the differentiation between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma, with an area under the ROC curve of 1.

Conclusion

IVIM is a beneficial, effective, non-invasive, and endogenous-contrast imaging technique. The D value derived from IVIM was the most essential factor for differentiating ependymoma from pilocytic astrocytoma.

Introduction

After leukemia, pediatric central nervous system tumors represent the second most prevalent cancer type, accounting for approximately 25% of all primary pediatric tumors. Cranial posterior fossa tumors constitute up to 70% of all pediatric brain tumors, and two of the most prominent brain tumors that occur in the posterior cranial fossa are ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma [13]. The definitive diagnosis of pediatric brain tumors is primarily performed based on histopathology after surgical tumor excision. Occasionally, diagnosis is based on preoperative biopsy, although this method is associated with morbidity and mortality risks [4]. Reliable preoperative, non-invasive, diagnostic imaging is widely accepted to be beneficial for determining the appropriate therapeutic approach. However, diagnostic imaging remains challenging due to tumor diversity and heterogeneity. In up to 10% of cases, pilocytic astrocytoma may present as a superior solid tumor [5]. Because the radiological features compatible with pilocytic astrocytoma are not always coherent, conventional imaging modalities cannot always be used to reach an exact diagnosis [5,6]. Kasliwal et al. reported a case in which the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings supported the diagnosis of an ependymoma-consistent posterior fossa tumor that was confirmed to be pilocytic astrocytoma based on postoperative histopathology [7]. Therefore, ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma can present overlapping imaging characteristics, increasing the risk of misdiagnosis with subsequent adverse effects for treatment planning and prognosis.

MRI is the global imaging instrument of choice for the examination of pediatric intracranial tumors [8,9]. Several efforts have been made to analyze whether the parameters of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion-weighted imaging (PWI) can be exploited for the classification of brain tumors in adults and children [1012]. In clinical practice, the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is typically measured using 2 b-values (0 and 1,000 s/mm2), which are considered valuable biomarkers for cellular density [13]. Various perfusion parameters, including cerebral blood volume (CBV), cerebral blood flow (CBF), relative enhancement, and the volume transfer constant (Ktrans), are used as major indicators for tumoral vascularity [14].

An imaging technique known as intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) was suggested by Le Bihan et al. to represent the molecular motion of water in tissues and could be utilized to distinguish between various diffusion and perfusion aspects [1517]. Capillary microcirculation may make cohesive microperfusion phases with small b-values challenging to distinguish by ADC [1517]. Therefore, diffusivity (D) may be impacted by perfusion, resulting in the miscalculation D values, especially in lesions with high perfusion levels. IVIM imaging fits the signal decay to a bi-exponential model by manipulating multiple b-values and segregates pseudo-diffusivity (D*) from the capillary perfusion fraction (f), allowing diffusion and perfusion markers to be calculated separately from the same imaging sequence. Because D values are based on a model that is not reliant on the effects of perfusion, the state of diffusion can be more accurately depicted than through conventional ADC measurements. IVIM does not require the use of intravenous contrast agents and can, therefore, be administered to children, pregnant women, patients with a previous extreme allergic/anaphylactic reaction to gadolinium-based contrast agents, and patients with estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) <30 mL/min/1.73 m2 [1517]. The goal of this study was to test the diagnostic ability of IVIM to distinguish between ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma in children.

Materials and methods

Patient data

The institutional review board of Children’s Hospital 02 approved this prospective study (Ref: 352/NĐ2-CĐT). Before study participation, written informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of all pediatric patients. Overall, 22 pediatric patients with posterior fossa tumors, who underwent head MRI from February 2019 to October 2020, were divided into two groups: group 1 contained 9 patients with confirmed ependymomas, and group 2 contained 13 patients with confirmed pilocytic astrocytomas. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) 7 b-values were obtained from DWI performed before tumor treatment at our hospital; (ii) the operation was performed at our hospital; and (iii) the histopathological results by hematoxylin and eosin staining were able to confirm the tumors as either ependymoma or pilocytic astrocytoma. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) other posterior fossa tumors; (ii) MRI prior to surgery performed by a different institution; and (iii) prior interventions, such as biopsy, surgery, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy.

Data acquisition

All patients underwent scanning with a 1.5 Tesla MRI machine (Multiva; Philips, Best, The Netherlands). DWI was performed to obtain 7 b-values (0, 25, 50, 100, 200, 1,000, and 1,500 s/mm2), in 3 orthogonal directions, using a single-shot echo-planar sequence in the axial plane, with the following parameters: repetition time, shortest; echo time, shortest; flip angle, 90 degrees; section thickness, 5 mm; gap, 1 mm; field of view (FOV), 230 × 230 mm2; matrix, 144 × 90 mm2; number of acquisition, 2; total scan time, 3.43 minutes.

The Advanced Diffusion Analysis (ADA) mode, available in the Philips Intellispace Portal, version 11, was used to analyze regions of interest (ROIs) defined in the tumors and the adjacent, normal-appearing parenchyma and to calculate bi-exponential IVIM parameters, including D, f, and D* (Figs 1 and 2) by two pediatric radiologists with 10-year experience. In this study, it is noted that unblinded single-ROI analysis was carried out. The ratios between the tumor and the adjacent parenchyma were defined by dividing the signal intensity of the tumor by the signal intensity of the adjacent, normal-appearing parenchyma. The ratios for the D, f, and D* values are referred to as rD, rf, and rD*.

Fig 1. A 1-year-old male patient with a fourth ventricular tumor, which was verified to be an ependymoma after surgery.

Fig 1

D image (A); f image (B); D* image (C); IVIM signal intensity curve (D); quantitative IVIM parameters of the tumor and the parenchyma (E).

Fig 2. A 7-year-old female patient with a fourth ventricular tumor, which was verified to be a pilocytic astrocytoma.

Fig 2

D image (A); f image (B); D* image (C); IVIM signal intensity curve (D); quantitative IVIM parameters of the tumor and the parenchyma (E).

Statistics

Non-normally distributed continuous variables are presented as the median and interquartile range. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the quantitative parameters between two groups. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were established to evaluate the functional parameters for diagnostic discrimination. The diagnostic thresholds for significant parameters were selected according to the Youden index. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS, version 26 (IBM Corp., New York, United States). Significant differences were defined at p < 0.05.

Results

The male/female ratios of groups 1 and 2 were 7/2 and 8/5, respectively. The median ages of groups 1 and 2 were 3 and 5 years, respectively.

As described in Table 1, the D, f, and rD values for ependymomas were significantly lower than those for pilocytic astrocytomas (p < 0.05).

Table 1. Comparison of the IVIM parameters between pilocytic astrocytomas and ependymomas.

IVIM parameters Ependymoma (n = 9) Pilocytic astrocytoma (n = 13) p-value
IVIM
D (10−3 mm2/s) 0.87 (0.34) 1.25 (0.49) < 0.001
f (%) 0.11 (0.10) 0.15 (0.08) 0.030
D* (10−3 mm2/s) 5.00 (0.05) 5.01 (0.01) 0.512
IVIM ratios
rD 1.45 (0.60) 2.10 (0.90) < 0.001
rf 2.00 (1.83) 2.00 (1.62) 0.556
rD* 1.00 (0.01) 1.00 (0.00) 0.601

IVIM: Intravoxel incoherent motion; D: Diffusivity; D*: Pseudo diffusivity; f: Perfusion fraction; rD: The ratio between the D value of the tumor and the D value of the parenchyma; rD*: The ratio between the D* value of the tumor and the D* value of the parenchyma; rf: The ratio between the f value of the tumor and the f value of the parenchyma.

As illustrated in Table 2, a cut-off D value of 1.030 was established for the precise diagnosis between pilocytic astrocytomas and ependymomas, generating the highest sensitivity value of 100%, a specificity of 100%, and an AUC of 100%. A cut-off rD value of 1.618 was selected for the precise diagnosis between pilocytic astrocytomas and ependymomas, resulting in a sensitivity of 88.9%, a specificity of 100%, and an AUC of 97.4%. A cut-off f value of 0.120 was established for the precise diagnosis between pilocytic astrocytomas and ependymomas, yielding a sensitivity value of 66.7%, a specificity of 84.6%, and an AUC of 77.4% (Fig 3).

Table 2. ROC analysis illustrating the cut-off value and the AUC, sensitivity, and specificity values, with 95% CIs, for the differential diagnosis between pilocytic astrocytomas and ependymomas.

IVIM parameters Cut-off point AUC Sensitivity Specificity 95% CI
D 1.030 1 1 1 1.000–1.000
f 0.120 0.774 0.667 0.846 0.567–0.980
rD 1.618 0.974 0.889 1 0.915–1.000

IVIM: Intravoxel incoherent motion; AUC: Area under the curve; CI: Confidence interval; D: Diffusivity; f: Perfusion fraction; rD: The ratio between the D value of the tumor and the D value of the parenchyma.

Fig 3. The ROC curves for the D, f, and rD values.

Fig 3

Discussion

Histopathologically, marked differences can be identified between high-grade gliomas (HGG) and low-grade gliomas (LGG), such as on the extent of nuclear malformation, cellular density, and microvascular proliferation [1827]. The ADC and D values reflect the movement of water molecules and the cellular density inside the tumor [1827]. Similarly, f values can represent tumoral angiogenesis or microvascular proliferation, which are useful biomarkers for grading brain tumors [1828]. In the current research, we examined whether preoperative IVIM can be exploited to differentiate ependymoma from pilocytic astrocytoma. We observed important variations between these two tumor types in the parameters D, f, and rD. We also defined the most acceptable cut-off values for each proposed parameter that could theoretically be applied in clinical practice for the preoperative separation of ependymoma cases from pilocytic astrocytoma cases. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the diagnostic function of IVIM for the differentiation of ependymoma from pilocytic astrocytoma.

D values demonstrated perfect sensitivity and specificity for the differentiation of the two tumor types in terms of diffusivity. Previous studies have stated that the diffusion of water molecules is constrained by the histopathological characteristic of malignant tumors, which is primarily due to hypercellularity, expanded nuclei, and high mitotic activity, and contributes to variations in D values between different brain tumor types [1827]. The quantity of cell membranes in dense tumors results in a decrease in the interstitial space and a decline in the size of the intracellular space, which limits water movement. Thus, D values can be used to evaluate the cell density of brain tumors. The f value might reflect the degree of tumor perfusion, which reflects vascularity [1828]. The degree of vascularity is an important histopathological feature used to classify glioma, as malignant glioma is distinguished from non-malignant glioma by neoangiogenesis [1828]. In a previous study by Kikuchi et al., the findings showed that f values correlated closely with microvessel density (as assessed by anti-CD31 immunostained vascular area/total tissue area ratio), which reflects neoangiogenesis progression [20].

According to the World Health Organization (WHO) classification, pilocytic astrocytoma, which is a benign, grade I tumor, is characterized by Rosenthal fibers, microcystic alterations, and hairy stromal cells or astrocytes. Pilocytic astrocytomas present with hypocellularity, low mitotic activity and rarely undergo malignant transformation. Despite the low cellular density, pilocytic astrocytomas tend to exhibit strong vascularity due to microvascular proliferation and an immensely vascularized stroma [29]. In contrast, ependymoma, which is a predominantly solid tumor, is classified by the WHO classification system as grade II (classic ependymoma) or III (anaplastic ependymoma). Ependymomas present with hypercellularity and high mitotic activity. Fundamentally, decreased water movement, caused by narrow inter- and intracellular spaces, contribute reductions in diffusion signal production. The diffusivity rate in a densely packed tumor, such as ependymoma, is expected to be minimal compared with that in the low-density pilocytic astrocytoma [12]. These factors explain the significantly reduced D, f, and rD values observed for ependymomas compared with those for pilocytic astrocytomas (0.87 vs. 1.25 × 10−3 mm2/s, 0.11% vs. 0.15%, and 1.45 vs. 2.10, respectively). In some previous studies, the D values for LGG and HGG ranged from 0.52–1.53 × 10−3 mm2/s and 0.76–1.02 × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively [1826]. The cut-off D values used to differentiate LGG from HGG ranged from 1.10–1.25 × 10−3 mm2/s. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC ranged from 81.48%–100%; 56.2%–86.96%; and 74.0%–94.3%, respectively [19,2123,25,26]. The f values for LGG and HGG ranged from 0.076%–9.5% and 0.1105–21.7%, respectively [1826]. The cut-off f values for differentiating LGG from HGG ranged from 0.09%–14.1%. The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values ranged from 77.78%–100%; 78.9%–91.30%; and 82.6%–95.7%, respectively [19,2123,25,26]. In a recent study by Wang et al. [27], the results revealed that rD value of LGG and HDD was 1.811 and 1.425 (p < 0.05), respectively. With the cut-off rD value of 0.828, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC values were 90.5%, 92.3%, and 97.1%, respectively. In this study, the cut-off D and f values for the differentiation between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma were 1.03 × 10−3 mm2/s and 0.12%, respectively. We also observed that D values had the best diagnostic performance for the separation of ependymoma cases from pilocytic astrocytoma cases, whereas f values played a moderate role in this process. In a previous study by Dolgorsuren et al. [28], the results showed that CBF derived from arterial spin labeling had a better correlation with CBF derived from dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) perfusion imaging than f value. In addition, the diffusion coefficient of the fast component on IVIM generated more information on permeability than the f value. Our findings are in line with previous reports [1828].

This study had some potential limitations. First, the patient population was comparatively small. Second, calculations were based on single ROIs for each case, which may have introduced observer bias. However, single-ROI analysis is commonly used in clinical practice. Whole-tumor segmentation could resolve this problem with histogram analysis. Third, for diffusion encoding, we only used 3 perpendicular directions. Anisotropic analysis through the diffusion tensor imaging system involves the use of at least 6 directions in anisotropic tissues; however, DWI averaged over 3 directions is frequently used during the diagnostic process in clinical practice. Fourth, only 2 types of posterior fossa tumors were investigated in this study. Finally, we only focused on the comparison of IVIM parameters between two tumor types without the assessment of the conventional ADC, classical DSC perfusion, and morphological information. To validate our results, further research should be performed examining additional tumor types in larger samples, investigating different measurement techniques, and combining morphological data.

Conclusion

IVIM allows details regarding tumor diffusivity and vascularity to be obtained concurrently, without depending on the use of intravenous contrast agents, which allows for this method to be applied in children, pregnant women, patients with severely compromised renal function, and patients with severe allergies to contrast agents. The D, f, and rD values were useful for tumor type differentiation, with the D value displaying the best diagnostic performance. Despite the moderate performance of the f value, it can contribute partially to the diagnostic differentiation between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma.

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Mai Tan Lien Bang, Dr. Dang Do Thanh Can, Dr. Huynh Quang Huy, Mr. Bilgin Keserci, Mrs Dang Thi Bich Ngoc and Mr. Nguyen Chanh Thi for their assistance and technical support in completing this research.

Ethics statement

The institutional review board of Children’s hospital 2 approved this prospective study (Ref: 352/NĐ2-CĐT). Informed consent of authorized guardians of patients was obtained.

Abbreviations

D

Diffusivity

f

Perfusion fraction

D*

Pseudo-diffusivity

IVIM

intravoxel incoherent motion

ROC

receiver operating characteristic

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Pollack IF. Brain tumors in children. N Engl J Med. 1994. December 1;331(22):1500–7. 10.1056/NEJM199412013312207 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Mueller S, Chang S. Pediatric brain tumors: current treatment strategies and future therapeutic approaches. Neurotherapeutics. 2009. July;6(3):570–86. 10.1016/j.nurt.2009.04.006 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Johnson KJ, Cullen J, Barnholtz-Sloan JS, Ostrom QT, Langer CE, Turner MC, et al. Childhood brain tumor epidemiology: a brain tumor epidemiology consortium review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014. December;23(12):2716–36. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0207 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Winkler D, Lindner D, Richter A, Meixensberger J, Schober J. The value of intraoperative smear examination of stereotaxic brain specimens. Minim Invasive Neurosurg. 2006. December;49(6):353–6. 10.1055/s-2006-955065 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Poretti A, Meoded A, Huisman TA. Neuroimaging of pediatric posterior fossa tumors including review of the literature. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012. January;35(1):32–47. 10.1002/jmri.22722 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Koob M, Girard N. Cerebral tumors: specific features in children. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014. October;95(10):965–83. 10.1016/j.diii.2014.06.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Kasliwal MK, Agrawal D. Intrinsic brainstem glioma mimicking an ependymoma. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39: 1250. 10.1007/s00247-009-1270-1 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Duc NM, Huy HQ. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Features of Common Posterior Fossa Brain Tumors in Children: A Preliminary Vietnamese Study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019;7:2413–8. 10.3889/oamjms.2019.635 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Duc NM, Huy HQ, Nadarajan C, Keserci B. The Role of Predictive Model Based on Quantitative Basic Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Medulloblastoma from Ependymoma. Anticancer Res 2020;40:2975–80. 10.21873/anticanres.14277 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Duc NM. The role of diffusion tensor imaging metrics in the discrimination between cerebellar medulloblastoma and brainstem glioma. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2020:e28468. 10.1002/pbc.28468 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Duc NM. The effect of semi-quantitative T1-perfusion parameters for the differentiation between pediatric medulloblastoma and ependymoma. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2020;51:109. 10.1186/s43055-020-00226-x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Duc NM. The Effects of Applying Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Parameters on the Differentiation between Fourth Ventricular Ependymoma and Diffuse Intrinsic Pontine Glioma. J Child Sci 2020;10(01):e169–e74. 10.1055/s-0040-1718897. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Drake-Pérez M, Boto J, Fitsiori A, Lovblad K, Vargas MI. Clinical applications of diffusion weighted imaging in neuroradiology. Insights Imaging 2018;9(4):535–47. 10.1007/s13244-018-0624-3 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Essig M, Shiroishi MS, Nguyen TB, Saake M, Provenzale JM, Enterline D, et al. Perfusion MRI: the five most frequently asked technical questions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(1):24–34. 10.2214/AJR.12.9543 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology. 1986. November;161(2):401–7. 10.1148/radiology.161.2.3763909 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Desbleds MT, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, et al. Contribution of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging to neuroradiology. J Neuroradiol. 1987;14(4):295–312. English, French. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology. 1988. August;168(2):497–505. 10.1148/radiology.168.2.3393671 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Bisdas S, Koh TS, Roder C, Braun C, Schittenhelm J, Ernemann U, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging of gliomas: feasibility of the method and initial results. Neuroradiology. 2013. October;55(10):1189–96. 10.1007/s00234-013-1229-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Federau C, Cerny M, Roux M, Mosimann PJ, Maeder P, Meuli R, et al. IVIM perfusion fraction is prognostic for survival in brain glioma. Clin Neuroradiol. 2017. December;27(4):485–492. 10.1007/s00062-016-0510-7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Kikuchi K, Hiwatashi A, Togao O, Yamashita K, Kamei R, Momosaka D, et al. Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MR Imaging of Pediatric Intracranial Tumors: Correlation with Histology and Diagnostic Utility. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2019. May;40(5):878–884. 10.3174/ajnr.A6052 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Catanese A, Malacario F, Cirillo L, Toni F, Zenesini C, Casolino D, et al. Application of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of primitive brain tumours. Neuroradiol J. 2018. February;31(1):4–9. 10.1177/1971400917693025 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Cao M, Suo S, Han X, Jin K, Sun Y, Wang Y, et al. Application of a Simplified Method for Estimating Perfusion Derived from Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Glioma Grading. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018. January 8;9:432. 10.3389/fnagi.2017.00432 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Shen N, Zhao L, Jiang J, Jiang R, Su C, Zhang S, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging analysis of diffusion and microperfusion in grading gliomas and comparison with arterial spin labeling for evaluation of tumor perfusion. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2016. September;44(3):620–32. 10.1002/jmri.25191 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hino T, Togao O, Hiwatashi A, Yamashita K, Kikuchi K, Momosaka D, et al. Clinical efficacy of simplified intravoxel incoherent motion imaging using three b-values for differentiating high- and low-grade gliomas. PLoS One. 2018. December 27;13(12):e0209796. 10.1371/journal.pone.0209796 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Togao O, Hiwatashi A, Yamashita K, Kikuchi K, Mizoguchi M, Yoshimoto K, et al. Differentiation of high-grade and low-grade diffuse gliomas by intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Neuro Oncol. 2016. January;18(1):132–41. 10.1093/neuonc/nov147 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Zou T, Yu H, Jiang C, Wang X, Jiang S, Rui Q, et al. Differentiating the histologic grades of gliomas preoperatively using amide proton transfer-weighted (APTW) and intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. NMR Biomed. 2018. January;31(1): 10.1002/nbm.3850 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wang C, Dong H. Ki-67 labeling index and the grading of cerebral gliomas by using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging and three-dimensional arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiol. 2020. August;61(8):1057–1063. 10.1177/0284185119891694 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dolgorsuren EA, Harada M, Kanazawa Y, Abe T, Otomo M, Matsumoto Y, et al. Correlation and Characteristics of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Arterial Spin Labeling Techniques Versus Multiple Parameters Obtained on Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Perfusion MRI for Brain Tumors. J Med Invest. 2019;66(3.4):308–313. 10.2152/jmi.66.308 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Leung SY, Chan AS, Wong MP, Yuen ST, Cheung N, Chung LP. Expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and its receptors in pilocytic astrocytoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997. August;21(8):941–50. 10.1097/00000478-199708000-00009 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Quan Jiang

4 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-31294

The diagnostic function of intravoxel incoherent motion for distinguishing between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Minh Duc,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

  1.  

    Please response the questions from the reviewers.

  2.  

    Lack of correlation with the classical DSC perfusion.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 09 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Quan Jiang, Ph,D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

3. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Introduction:

- References [1-3] are cited three times. Please cite them only once.

- Line 15: coonfirmed o be==> confirmed to be

- You say IVIM was "recently" described- It was described in the 80s, so please use other expression.

Data acquisition:

- How many different observers perfomed the measures? How much experience in pediatric Neurorradiology did they have?

Was it unblinded or blinded?

- How many ROIs were used?

- Please describe the methods for hystopathologic diagnosis

Results:

- Group 1 and 2: Please define what group was each type of tumor.

- In order to analyze the advantages of IVIM measurements compared to teh use of ADC it would be interesting to compare values of ADC in both type of tumors too in this study.

Discussion

Line 25:It would be intersting to present hystopathological data of anti CD31 in this study

Reviewer #2: In this study, the authors have analyzed the IVIM imaging for the diagnostic's distinction between ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma. The results are quite clear demonstrating a significant D and f values between these two tumors. The D value derived from IVIM is the most essential factor. The IVIM sequence is interesting because it makes it possible to dispense with the injection of a contrast agent in order to estimate tumoral perfusion. The interest of this study is its application on tumors not explored in previous studies which are focused on metastasis, low and high grade glioma, meningioma and lymphoma. The limits of this study are the small numbers of patients and the lack of correlation with the classical DSC perfusion (which has been done in other glioma studies).

I have some comments about this article:

1) This study was conducted on a 1.5T. Are there any studies comparing IVIM sequence between magnetic fields?

2) The lesion characteristics are not detailed, in particular the tumor sizes which may participate to partial volume effect.

3) The authors used the Philips software, would it be possible to have the estimation model: classic monoexponential or biexponential?

4) Some recent references are missing:

Ki-67 labeling index and the grading of cerebral gliomas by using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging and three-dimensional arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging. Chaochao Wang , Haibo Dong Acta Radiol . 2020 Aug;61(8):1057-1063.

Correlation and Characteristics of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Arterial Spin Labeling Techniques Versus Multiple Parameters Obtained on Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Perfusion MRI for Brain Tumors. Enkh-Amgalan olgorsuren, Masafumi Harada, Yuki Kanazawa , Takashi Abe, Maki Otomo, Yuki Matsumoto, Yoshifumi Mizobuchi, Kohhei Nakajima. J. Med. Invest.. 2019;66(3.4):308-313. The conclusion of this study is that compared to DSC, the ASL-CBF is more suitable for the evaluation of perfusion in brain tumors than IVIM parameters and should be discussed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nerea Domínguez-Pinilla

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Mar 1;16(3):e0247899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0247899.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


21 Jan 2021

December 8, 2020

Dear Editor

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to improve and resubmit our manuscript “The diagnostic function of intravoxel incoherent motion for distinguishing between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma” Ms. PONE-D-20-31294

Please find enclosed the revised manuscript for further consideration. The manuscript has been revised according to the comments raised by the reviewer to the best of our ability. Please find a detailed reply to the reviewer comments attached to this revision. We would like to thank the reviewers for the constructive and competent criticism, and we hope that our manuscript will be acceptable for publication in your journal.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Nguyen Minh Duc

Department of Radiology - Pham Ngoc Thach University of Medicine

Email: bsnguyenminhduc@pnt.edu.vn

Reviewer #1:

- References [1-3] are cited three times. Please cite them only once.

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested. Please refer to page 4 lines from 2 to 6. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

- Line 15: coonfirmed o be==> confirmed to be

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested. Please refer to page 4 line 16. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

- You say IVIM was "recently" described- It was described in the 80s, so please use other expression.

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested. Please refer to page 4 line 28. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

Data acquisition:

- How many different observers perfomed the measures? How much experience in pediatric Neurorradiology did they have?

Was it unblinded or blinded?

How many ROIs were used?

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested to clarify these points. Please refer to page 6 lines from 5 to 7 and page 10 lines from 6 to 7. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

- Please describe the methods for hystopathologic diagnosis

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested to clarify these points. Please refer to page 5 lines from 22 to 23. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

- Group 1 and 2: Please define what group was each type of tumor.

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested to clarify these points. Please refer to page 5 lines from 18 to 20. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

- In order to analyze the advantages of IVIM measurements compared to teh use of ADC it would be interesting to compare values of ADC in both type of tumors too in this study.

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. In this study, our aim was to perform only IVIM analysis. However, reviewer’s recommendation is appropriate; thus, we have added this to the limitation part of this study. Please refer to page 10 lines from 12 to 16. We hope our revision makes make reviewer satisfactory.

Discussion

Line 25:It would be intersting to present hystopathological data of anti CD31 in this study

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. For confirming ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma, H&E staining can be resolved efficaciously and anti CD31 was not needed. Thus we are very sorry to reviewer that this request cannot be done. We hope reviewer finds our explanation appropriate.

Reviewer #2:

In this study, the authors have analyzed the IVIM imaging for the diagnostic's distinction between ependymoma and pilocytic astrocytoma. The results are quite clear demonstrating a significant D and f values between these two tumors. The D value derived from IVIM is the most essential factor. The IVIM sequence is interesting because it makes it possible to dispense with the injection of a contrast agent in order to estimate tumoral perfusion. The interest of this study is its application on tumors not explored in previous studies which are focused on metastasis, low and high grade glioma, meningioma and lymphoma. The limits of this study are the small numbers of patients and the lack of correlation with the classical DSC perfusion (which has been done in other glioma studies).

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested. Please refer to page 10 lines from 12 to 16. We hope that reviewer find our revision satisfactory.

1) This study was conducted on a 1.5T. Are there any studies comparing IVIM sequence between magnetic fields?

+ Up to now, IVIM in each study was performed on 1.5 or 3T. The information of IVIM between two or more magnetic fields was not investigated yet. We hope that our explanation makes reviewer feel satisfactory.

2) The lesion characteristics are not detailed, in particular the tumor sizes which may participate to partial volume effect.

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested. Please refer to page 10 lines from 5 to 16. We hope that reviewer find our revision satisfactory.

3) The authors used the Philips software, would it be possible to have the estimation model: classic monoexponential or biexponential?

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly as requested. Please refer to page 6 lines from 5 to 7. We hope that reviewer find our revision satisfactory.

4) Some recent references are missing:

Ki-67 labeling index and the grading of cerebral gliomas by using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging and three-dimensional arterial spin labeling magnetic resonance imaging. Chaochao Wang , Haibo Dong Acta Radiol . 2020 Aug;61(8):1057-1063.

Correlation and Characteristics of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Arterial Spin Labeling Techniques Versus Multiple Parameters Obtained on Dynamic Susceptibility Contrast Perfusion MRI for Brain Tumors. Enkh-Amgalan olgorsuren, Masafumi Harada, Yuki Kanazawa , Takashi Abe, Maki Otomo, Yuki Matsumoto, Yoshifumi Mizobuchi, Kohhei Nakajima. J. Med. Invest.. 2019;66(3.4):308-313. The conclusion of this study is that compared to DSC, the ASL-CBF is more suitable for the evaluation of perfusion in brain tumors than IVIM parameters and should be discussed.

+ We are grateful to reviewer’ comment. We have revised text accordingly and added the information in these studies as requested. Please refer to page 9 lines from 24 to 27 and page 10 lines from 1 to 3. We also updated the order of references based on adding two new references of 27, 28 as suggested. We hope that reviewer finds our revision satisfactory.

Attachment

Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

Decision Letter 1

Quan Jiang

17 Feb 2021

The diagnostic function of intravoxel incoherent motion for distinguishing between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma

PONE-D-20-31294R1

Dear Dr. Minh Duc,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Quan Jiang, Ph,D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Nerea Domínguez-Pinilla

Acceptance letter

Quan Jiang

19 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-31294R1

The diagnostic function of intravoxel incoherent motion for distinguishing between pilocytic astrocytoma and ependymoma

Dear Dr. Minh Duc:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Quan Jiang

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: RESPONSE TO REVIEWERS.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES