Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

BACKGROUND: There are different opinions of the clinical value of MRS of the brain. In selected materials MRS has demonstrated good results for characterisation of both neoplastic and non-neoplastic lesions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the supplemental value of MR spectroscopy (MRS) in a clinical setting.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: MRI and MRS were re-evaluated in 208 cases with a clinically indicated MRS (cases with uncertain or insufficient information on MRI) and a confirmed diagnosis. Both single voxel spectroscopy (SVS) and chemical shift imaging (CSI) were performed in 105 cases, only SVS or CSI in 54 and 49 cases, respectively. Diagnoses were grouped into categories: non-neoplastic disease, low-grade tumour, and high-grade tumour. The clinical value of MRS was considered very beneficial if it provided the correct category or location when MRI did not, beneficial if it ruled out suspected diseases or was more specific than MRI, inconsequential if it provided the same level of information, or misleading if it provided less or incorrect information.

RESULTS: There were 70 non-neoplastic lesions, 43 low-grade tumours, and 95 high-grade tumours. For MRI, the category was correct in 130 cases (62%), indeterminate in 39 cases (19%), and incorrect in 39 cases (19%). Supplemented with MRS, 134 cases (64%) were correct, 23 cases (11%) indeterminate, and 51 (25%) incorrect. Additional information from MRS was beneficial or very beneficial in 31 cases (15%) and misleading in 36 cases (17%).

CONCLUSION: In most cases MRS did not add to the diagnostic value of MRI. In selected cases, MRS may be a valuable supplement to MRI.

Purpose: We evaluated in a clinical setting the INTERPRET decision-support system (DSS), a software generated to aid in MRS analysis to achieve a specific diagnosis for brain lesions.

Methods: The material consisted of 100 examinations of focal intracranial lesions with confirmed diagnoses. MRS was obtained at 1.5 T using TE 20–30 ms. Data were processed with the LCModel for conventional analysis. The INTERPRET DSS 3.1. was used to obtain specific diagnoses. MRI and MRS were reviewed by one interpreter. DSS analysis was made by another interpreter, in 80 cases by two interpreters. The diagnoses were compared with the definitive diagnoses. For comparisons between DSS, conventional MRS analysis, and MRI, the diagnoses were categorised: high-grade tumour, low-grade tumour, non-neoplastic lesion.

Results: Interobserver agreement in choosing the diagnosis from the INTERPRET database was 75%. The diagnosis was correct in 38/100 cases, incorrect in 57 cases. No good match was found in 5/100 cases. The diagnostic category was correct with DSS/conventional MRS/MRI in 67/58/52 cases, indeterminate in 5/8/20 cases, incorrect in 28/34/28 cases. Results with DSS were not significantly better than with conventional MRS analysis. All definitive diagnoses did not exist in the INTERPRET database. In the 61 adult patients with the diagnosis included in the database, DSS/conventional MRS/MRI yielded a correct diagnosis category in 48/32/29 cases (DSS vs conventional MRS: p = 0.002, DSS vs MRI: p = 0.0004).

Conclusion: Use of the INTERPRET DSS did not improve MRS categorisation of the lesions in the unselected clinical cases. In adult patients with lesions existing in the INTERPRET database, DSS improved the results, which indicates the potential of this software with an extended database.