Radiological features of infantile glioblastoma and desmoplastic infantile tumors: British Columbia’s Children’s Hospital experience
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECT Two of the more common infantile brain tumors, glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and desmoplastic infantile tumors (DITs), can be difficult to distinguish on MRI. Both tumors occur in the supratentorial compartment and both have solid and cystic components. Differentiating between the 2 on MRI studies could assist the surgeon in discussions with family and child management. The authors report on their institutional experience with both tumors, focusing on radio-graphic features, especially the diffusion studies, which might be useful in distinguishing between infantile GBM and DIT. METHODS A retrospective review was undertaken of all infantile brain tumors treated at British Columbia's Children's Hospital between 1982 and 2012, and cases of GBM and DIT were recorded. Only cases that had imaging were included in the study. A literature review was completed to identify reported cases of infantile GBM and DIT. Only reports that described or included radiological studies (particularly MRI) of the tumors were included. Certain radiographic features of the tumors were reviewed, including location, size, consistency, pattern of enhancement, and features on MR diffusion studies. RESULTS Of 70 cases of infantile brain tumors, 2 GBM cases and 3 DIT cases (all 3 of which were desmoplastic infantile gangliogliomas [DIGs]) met the inclusion criteria. The radiological studies obtained in all 5 cases were reviewed by a neuroradiologist. All 5 patients had supratentorial tumors with cystic-solid consistency. Diffusion MRI studies showed restricted diffusion in the 2 GBM cases, but no evidence of restricted diffusion in the DIG tumors. The GBM tumors were heterogeneously enhancing, and the DIG tumors showed avid and homogeneous enhancement. The literature review revealed 29 cases of infantile GBM and 32 cases of DIG/DIT that met the inclusion criteria. The tumors were large in both groups. The tumors were cystic-solid in consistency in 10 of 30 (33%) of GBM cases and 28 of 32 (87.5%) of DIT cases. The contrast enhancement was heterogeneous in 9 of 30 (30%) GBM cases, and it was homogeneous and avid in 27 of 32 (84%) of DIT cases. Diffusion studies were recorded in 2 published infantile GBM cases, and in both of them diffusion was restricted. The authors only found 1 report that discussed DIG tumor features on MR diffusion studies, but the interpretation was difficult and unclear. CONCLUSIONS Magnetic resonance imaging, especially diffusion-weighted imaging, may be a useful aid in distinguishing between infantile GBM and DIT tumors, with infantile GBM demonstrating restricted diffusion.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».