BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Metastasis to the regional cervical lymph nodes may be associated with alterations in water diffusivity and microcirculation of the node. We tested whether diffusion-weighted MR imaging could discriminate metastatic nodes. METHODS: Diffusion-weighted echo-planar and T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging sequences were performed on histologically proved metastatic cervical lymph nodes (25 nodes), benign lymphadenopathy (25 nodes), and nodal lymphomas (five nodes). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated by using two b factors (500 and 1000 s/mm(2)). RESULTS: The ADC was significantly greater in metastatic lymph nodes (0.410 +/- 0.105 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P <.01) than in benign lymphadenopathy (0.302 +/- 0.062 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). Nodal lymphomas showed even lower levels of the ADC (0.223 +/- 0.056 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). ADC criteria for metastatic nodes (>/= 0.400 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) yielded a moderate negative predictive value (71%) and high positive predictive value (93%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the criteria of abnormal signal intensity on T1- or T2-weighted images (A(z) = 0.8437 +/- 0.0230) and ADC (A(z) = 0.8440 +/- 0.0538) provided similar levels of diagnostic ability in differentiating metastatic nodes. The ADC from metastatic nodes from highly or moderately differentiated cancers (0.440 +/- 0.020 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P <.01) was significantly greater than that from poorly differentiated cancers (0.356 +/- 0.042 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). CONCLUSION: Diffusion-weighted imaging is useful in discriminating metastatic nodes.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Metastasis to the regional cervical lymph nodes may be associated with alterations in water diffusivity and microcirculation of the node. We tested whether diffusion-weighted MR imaging could discriminate metastatic nodes. METHODS: Diffusion-weighted echo-planar and T1- and T2-weighted MR imaging sequences were performed on histologically proved metastatic cervical lymph nodes (25 nodes), benign lymphadenopathy (25 nodes), and nodal lymphomas (five nodes). The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was calculated by using two b factors (500 and 1000 s/mm(2)). RESULTS: The ADC was significantly greater in metastatic lymph nodes (0.410 +/- 0.105 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P <.01) than in benign lymphadenopathy (0.302 +/- 0.062 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). Nodal lymphomas showed even lower levels of the ADC (0.223 +/- 0.056 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). ADC criteria for metastatic nodes (>/= 0.400 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) yielded a moderate negative predictive value (71%) and high positive predictive value (93%). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that the criteria of abnormal signal intensity on T1- or T2-weighted images (A(z) = 0.8437 +/- 0.0230) and ADC (A(z) = 0.8440 +/- 0.0538) provided similar levels of diagnostic ability in differentiating metastatic nodes. The ADC from metastatic nodes from highly or moderately differentiated cancers (0.440 +/- 0.020 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s, P <.01) was significantly greater than that from poorly differentiated cancers (0.356 +/- 0.042 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). CONCLUSION: Diffusion-weighted imaging is useful in discriminating metastatic nodes.
Authors: M W van den Brekel; H V Stel; J A Castelijns; J J Nauta; I van der Waal; J Valk; C J Meyer; G B Snow Journal: Radiology Date: 1990-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: T Sugahara; Y Korogi; M Kochi; I Ikushima; Y Shigematu; T Hirai; T Okuda; L Liang; Y Ge; Y Komohara; Y Ushio; M Takahashi Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: R P Takes; P Knegt; J J Manni; C A Meeuwis; H A Marres; H A Spoelstra; M F de Boer; I Bruaset; J A van Oostayen; J S Laméris; R H Kruyt; F B Joosten; J H van Krieken; F T Bosman; S C Henzen-Logmans; J M Wiersma-van Tilburg; J Hermans; R J Baatenburg de Jong Journal: Radiology Date: 1996-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: J Wang; S Takashima; F Takayama; S Kawakami; A Saito; T Matsushita; M Momose; T Ishiyama Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: K S S Bhatia; A D King; D K W Yeung; F Mo; A C Vlantis; K-H Yu; J K T Wong; A T Ahuja Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2010-07-20 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Ann D King; Frankie K F Mo; Kwok-Hung Yu; David K W Yeung; Hua Zhou; Kunwar S Bhatia; Gary M K Tse; Alexander C Vlantis; Jeffrey K T Wong; Anil T Ahuja Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: C S Schouten; P de Graaf; E Bloemena; B I Witte; B J M Braakhuis; R H Brakenhoff; C R Leemans; J A Castelijns; R de Bree Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 3.825