Multiparameter Magnetic Resonance Quantitative Evaluation of Pancreatic Cancer with Vascular Invasion

Abstract

Objective. To analyze the value of multiparameter magnetic resonance (mpMRI) in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with vascular invasion from two aspects: morphology and function, so as to provide a reliable diagnostic basis for preparing the clinical treatment plans. Methods. Totally 31 case data of pancreatic cancer patients diagnosed in our hospital from January 2020 to March 2021 were enrolled in this study. All patients underwent multiparameter magnetic resonance imaging (T1WI, T2WI, DKI, and DCE-MRI) before surgery, and then all patients underwent pancreatic cancer surgery. Two experienced radiologists analyzed these obtained images according to the image reports and combined them with the pathological results. Taking pathological results as gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of quantitative parameters derived from T2WI, DKI, DCE, T2WI + DKI, T2WI + DCE, and T2WI + DKI + DCE for the diagnostic capabilities of pancreatic cancer vascular invasion were calculated using diagnostic laboratory methods. Kappa consistency test was used to estimate the consistency of two radiologists’ diagnosis and analysis. The images obtained by DKI sequence were input into the postprocessing software MITK-Diffusion v2014.10.02, The images obtained from DCE sequence were processed by the Tissue 4D software on the Siemens syngo via workstation to calculate and analyze each tumor ROI’s MD, MK values from DKI, and K trans , K ep , V e values from DCE. Independent samples t -test was used to compare the parameters of pancreatic cancer with vascular invasion group (16 cases) and nonvascular invasion group (15 cases). ROC curve was used to analyze the efficacy of each parameter in diagnosing pancreatic cancer vascular invasion. Results. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of T2WI were 62.5%, 53.5%, and 58.1%; those of DKI were 56.3%, 60.0%, and 58.1%; those of DCE were 68.8%, 60.0%, and 64.5%; those of T2WI + DKI were 68.8%, 66.7%, and 67.7%; those of T2WI + DCE were 75.0%, 66.7%, and 71.1%; those of T2WI + DKI + DCE were 81.2%, 73.3%, and 77.4%, respectively. These two diagnostic radiologists analyzed image data with good consistency, Kappa = 0.834 . MD, MK, K trans , K ep , and V e were significantly different between the vascular invasion group and the nonvascular invasion group ( p < 0.05 ). Each parameter’s AUC of ROC curve was 0.773, 0.829, 0.794, 0.802, and 0.846 ( p < 0.05 ). Take MD = 2.285 × 10 − 3 mm / s 2 , MK = 0.72 , K trans = 0.103 , K ep = 0.337 , and V e = 0.353 as thresholds; the sensitivity of these parameters to diagnose vascular invasion of pancreatic cancer was 73.33%, 75%, 87.5%, 68.8%, and 68.8%. The specificity of them was 75%, 80%, 60%, 86.7%, and 86.7%, respectively. Conclusion. The combined analysis of T2WI + DKI + DCE can improve the specificity and accuracy of diagnostic efficiency of vascular invasion of pancreatic cancer and provide an important diagnostic basis for pancreatic cancer’s preoperative treatment.

Correlation of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion Kurtosis MR Imaging Models With Reactive Stromal Grade in Prostate Cancer

“…29 MD parameter reflects the diffusion state of water molecules within the tumor and is similar to the ADC value in the DWI model. 35 This study found that MD values were moderately positively correlated with RSG in PCa. MD values were higher in high RSG than in low RSG, and the AUC was better for MD than for ADC values, which is consistent with a previous study.…”

“…DKI can reflect the tissue's non‐Gaussian movement pattern of water molecules 29 . MD parameter reflects the diffusion state of water molecules within the tumor and is similar to the ADC value in the DWI model 35 . This study found that MD values were moderately positively correlated with RSG in PCa.…”

Retracted: Multiparameter Magnetic Resonance Quantitative Evaluation of Pancreatic Cancer with Vascular Invasion

“…This article has been retracted by Hindawi, as publisher, following an investigation undertaken by the publisher [1]. This investigation has uncovered evidence of systematic manipulation of the publication and peer-review process.…”