title: Use of permeability surface area-product to differentiate intracranial tumours from abscess.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Clinical and radiological findings of intracranial abscesses may mimic the findings of brain tumours and vice versa. However, the discrimination is of great clinical importance in planning treatment and in following prognosis and response to therapy. This study evaluates the Computed Tomography (CT) perfusion parameters, especially the permeability index, with the aim of evaluating the usefulness of dynamic CT perfusion imaging as an alternative tool to differentiate necrotic brain tumours and intracerebral abscesses.
  
  
  METHODS
  A total of 21 patients underwent perfusion CT study and were divided into 2 groups: Group 1, patients with necrotic brain tumours (n=13); and Group 2, patients with cerebral abscesses (n=8). The mean perfusion parameters were obtained from the enhancing part of the lesion. The relative ratios were then calculated by using the results from mirrored regions within the contralateral hemisphere as reference.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The results of this study showed that there was significant difference in the relative permeability surface values between necrotic brain tumours and cerebral abscesses (p=0.005). By applying the ROC curve, a value of 25.1 for rPS was found to be the best estimate to distinguish necrotic brain tumours from cerebral abscesses with a specificity of 88 % and sensitivity of 70 %.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  CT perfusion, especially permeability surface, may allow for better differentiation of cerebral abscesses from brain tumours, making it a strong additional imaging modality in the early diagnosis of these two entities.
authors: N
authors: N
authors: Ramli
authors: K
authors: K
authors: Rahmat
authors: E
authors: E
authors: Mah
authors: V
authors: V
authors: Waran
authors: Lk
authors: L
authors: Tan
authors: Ht
authors: H
authors: Chong
references: J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999 Dec;10(6):903-7
references: 10581502
references: J Magn Reson Imaging. 1997 Jan-Feb;7(1):111-9
references: 9039600
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001 Jun-Jul;22(6):1077-80
references: 11415901
references: Australas Radiol. 2002 Sep;46(3):221-30
references: 12196228
references: Australas Radiol. 1998 Nov;42(4):335-40
references: 9833371
references: Curr Infect Dis Rep. 1999 Jun;1(2):166-171
references: 11095784
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 Nov-Dec;21(10):1881-4
references: 11110541
references: Curr Top Microbiol Immunol. 1999;237:97-132
references: 9893348
references: Neuroradiology. 2006 Oct;48(10):773-81
references: 16937146
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2008 Apr;29(4):694-700
references: 18202239
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000 May;21(5):891-9
references: 10815665
references: Radiology. 2005 Apr;235(1):1-2
references: 15798159
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Sep;185(3):763-7
references: 16120931
references: Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 1997 Jan-Jun;1(1-3):17-25
references: 9444794
references: Radiology. 1998 Sep;208(3):663-9
references: 9722843
references: Radiology. 2005 Apr;235(1):65-72
references: 15731376
references: Eur Radiol. 2005 Mar;15(3):485-93
references: 15627191
references: Br J Radiol. 2006 Jan;79(937):56-61
references: 16421406
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 Jan;23(1):7-14
references: 11827869
references: Neuroradiology. 2003 Jun;45(6):373-6
references: 12719953
references: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2005 Sep-Oct;29(5):663-7
references: 16163039
references: Crit Rev Comput Tomogr. 2004;45(3):181-224
references: 15328703
references: Surg Neurol. 2005 May;63(5):442-9; discussion 449-50
references: 15883068
references: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2002 May;23(5):828-32
references: 12006286