Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 374

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Malignant Astrocytic Tumors: Clinical Importance of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Prediction of Grade and Prognosis

Higano, Shuichi, Yun, Xia, Kumabe, Toshihiro, Watanabe, Mika, Mugikura, Shunji, Umetsu, Atsushi, Sato, Akihiro, Yamada, Takayuki, Takahashi, Shoki·2006·Radiology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for prediction of malignancy and prognosis of malignant astrocytic tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this study and did not require patient informed consent. Findings from 37 consecutive patients (21 men, 16 women; mean age, 43 years) with pathologically proved malignant astrocytic tumors that included 22 glioblastomas (GBMs) and 15 anaplastic astrocytomas (AAs) were retrospectively evaluated. The minimum ADC value of each tumor was preoperatively determined from several regions of interest defined in the tumor, preferably with avoidance of cystic or necrotic components, on ADC maps derived from isotropic diffusion-weighted images. Surgical intervention, followed by radiation therapy, was undertaken in all cases according to hospital protocol. Immunohistologically, Ki-67 labeling index (LI), indicating cell proliferation, was also determined. The patients were classified into two groups, progressive and stable, according to the 2-year observation after the initial treatment. Correlation analysis (Pearson product moment correlation), Student t test, Welch test, receiver operating characteristic analysis, and Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank test were used for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: There was a significant negative correlation between minimum ADC and Ki-67 LI (r = -0.562, P < .001). The mean minimum ADC (0.834 x 10(-3) mm2 x sec(-1)) of GBM was significantly lower than that (1.06 x 10(-3) mm2 x sec(-1)) of AA (P < .001, Student t test). The mean minimum ADC (0.80 x 10(-3) mm2 x sec(-1)) of the progressive group was significantly lower than that (1.037 x 10(-3) mm2 x sec(-1)) of the stable group (P < .001). The cutoff value of 0.90 x 10(-3) mm2 x sec(-1) for minimum ADC for differentiation of patients with a favorable prognosis from those with a poor prognosis provided the best combination of sensitivity (79%) and specificity (81%) (receiver operating characteristic analysis). The significant difference in the prognosis between two groups classified by using this cutoff value of minimum ADC was noted (P = .002, log-rank test). CONCLUSION: The minimum ADC of malignant astrocytomas can provide additional information about their clinical malignancy related to posttreatment prognosis.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1148/radiol.2413051276

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 374

Metadata

Authors
Higano, S., Yun, X., Kumabe, T., Watanabe, M., Mugikura, S., Umetsu, A., Sato, A., Yamada, T., & Takahashi, S.
Venue
Radiology
Published
2006-12
Volume
241
Issue
3
Pages
839-846
ISSN
  • 0033-8419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-1315
OpenAlex
W2143338967
Cited by
374
References
0
FWCI
4.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Malignant Astrocytic Tumors: Clinical Importance of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Prediction of Grade and Prognosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1148/radiol.2413051276
The paper
Higano, S., Yun, X., Kumabe, T., Watanabe, M., Mugikura, S., Umetsu, A., Sato, A., Yamada, T., & Takahashi, S. (2006). Malignant Astrocytic Tumors: Clinical Importance of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Prediction of Grade and Prognosis. Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2413051276

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.