Reproducibility of measurement of apparent diffusion coefficients of malignant hepatic tumors: Effect of DWI techniques and calculation methods

Kim, So Yeon; Lee, Seung Soo; Park, Bumwoo; Kim, Namkug; Kim, Jeong Kon; Park, Seong Ho; Byun, Jae Ho; Song, Kyu‐Sang; Koo, Ja-heung; Choi, Eun Kyung; Lee, Moon-Gyu

doi:10.1002/jmri.23744

Cited by 61 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The reproducibility and robustness of the diffusion parameter measurements can be improved by acquiring MR images during breath-holdings (Fig. 2), increasing the number of b-values, and using Bayesian analysis [47,48].…”

Section: Diffusion-weighted Mr Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

New imaging techniques for liver diseases

Beers

Daire

Garteiser

2015

Journal of Hepatology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Newly developed or advanced methods of ultrasonography and MR imaging provide combined anatomical and quantitative functional information about diffuse and focal liver diseases. Ultrasound elastography has a central role for staging liver fibrosis and an increasing role in grading portal hypertension; dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography may improve tumor characterization. In clinical practice, MR imaging examinations currently include diffusion-weighted and dynamic MR imaging, enhanced with extracellular or hepatobiliary contrast agents. Moreover, quantitative parameters obtained with diffusion-weighted MR imaging, dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and MR elastography have the potential to characterize further diffuse and focal liver diseases, by adding information about tissue cellularity, perfusion, hepatocyte transport function and visco-elasticity. The multiparametric capability of ultrasonography and more markedly of MR imaging gives the opportunity for high diagnostic performance by combining imaging biomarkers. However, image acquisition and post-processing methods should be further standardized and validated in multicenter trials.

show abstract

Section: Diffusion-weighted Mr Imagingmentioning

confidence: 99%

New imaging techniques for liver diseases

Beers

Daire

Garteiser

2015

Journal of Hepatology

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When a reduction in score of Repeatability of measurements of cohort 1a and 1b ADC was assessed by Bland-Altman analysis (22), whereby the respective coefficients (which indicate the greatest difference between replicate ADC measurements in 95% of paired observations) were calculated as r of 1.96 multiplied by the standard deviation of the percentage ADC difference. Bland-Altman plots have been used to assess repeatability in a variety of studies (23)(24)(25)(26). In addition, paired t test was tested for statistically significant differences between the repeat measurements in cohorts 1a and 1b.…”

Section: Observer Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Whole-Body Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging for Assessment of Treatment Response in Myeloma

Giles

Messiou²,

Collins³

et al. 2014

Radiology

179

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

FRCP, FRCP Nandita M. deSouza, MD, FRCP, FRCR Purpose:To determine the feasibility of whole-body diffusionweighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for assessment of treatment response in myeloma. Materials and Methods:This prospective single-institution study was HIPAAcompliant with local research ethics committee approval. Written informed consent was obtained from each subject. Eight healthy volunteers (cohort 1a) and seven myeloma patients (cohort 1b) were imaged twice to assess repeatability of quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) estimates. Thirty-four additional myeloma patients (cohort 2) underwent whole-body DW imaging before treatment; 26 completed a posttreatment imaging. Wholebody DW data were compared before and after treatment by using qualitative (ie, observer scores) and quantitative (ie, whole-body segmentation of marrow ADC) methods. Serum paraproteins and/or light chains or bone marrow biopsy defined response. Results:Whole-body DW imaging scores were significantly different between observers (P , .001), but change in scores between observers after treatment was not (P = .49). Sensitivity and specificity for detecting response according to observer scores were 86% (18 of 21 patients) and 80% (4 of 5 patients) for both observers. ADC measurement was repeatable: mean coefficient of variation was 3.8% in healthy volunteers and 2.8% in myeloma patients. Pretreatment ADC in cohort 2 was significantly different from that in cohort 1a (P = .03), but not from that in cohort 1b (P = .2). Mean ADC increased in 95% (19 of 20) of responding patients and decreased in all (five of five) nonresponders (P = .002). A 3.3% increase in ADC helped identify response with 90% sensitivity and 100% specificity; an 8% increase (greater than repeatability of cohort 1b) resulted in 70% sensitivity and 100% specificity. There was a significant negative correlation between change in ADC and change in laboratory markers of response (r = 20.614; P = .001). Conclusion:Preliminary work demonstrates whole-body DW imaging is a repeatable, quantifiable technique for assessment of treatment response in myeloma.q RSNA, 2014 1

show abstract

“…The fluid-rich environments of SCNs likely result in higher ADC values, whereas the decreased extracellular space associated with the dense cellularity in NETs accounts for the lower ADC values. Considering that ADC values are affected by many technical factors [18,19], we suggest that visual assessment of the ADC values of tumours compared to the non-tumorous pancreatic parenchyma on ADC maps would be easier to use in routine clinical practice than the use of ADC values themselves. The restrictive pattern of NETs compared to the adjacent pancreatic parenchyma seen on ADC maps is consistent with a previously published study [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Otherwise, they were regarded as the restrictive pattern of ADC. The ROI measurements of the ADCs of pancreatic lesions were performed on a MatLab-based software (4D analyser; Clinical Imaging Solution, Seoul, South Korea) [18,19] calculating the ADCs using the least-square exponential fitting of the three b values, i.e. 150, 500 and 1, 000 mm 2 /s.…”

Section: Image Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%