A Srinivasan1, R Dvorak, K Perni, S Rohrer, S K Mukherji. 1. Department of Radiology, Division of Neuroradiology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, Mich, USA. ashoks@med.umich.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to study differences in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values between benign and malignant head and neck lesions at 3T field strength imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study population in this retrospective study was derived from the patient population who had undergone routine neck 3T MR imaging (for clinical indications) from December 2005 to December 2006. There were 33 patients identified: 17 with benign and 16 with malignant pathologies. In all of the subjects, conventional MR imaging sequences were performed apart from diffusion-weighted sequences. The mean ADC values in the benign and malignant groups were compared using an unpaired t test with unequal variance with a P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (P = .004) between the mean ADC values (in 10(-3) mm(2)/s) in the benign and malignant lesions (1.505 +/- 0.487; 95% confidence interval, 1.305-1.706, and 1.071 +/- 0.293; 95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.277, respectively). There were 2 malignant lesions with ADC values higher than 1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s and 5 benign lesions with ADC values less than 1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The lack of overlap of ADC values within 95% confidence limits suggests that a 3T ADC value of 1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s may be the threshold value for differentiation between benign and malignant head and neck lesions. CONCLUSION: ADC values of benign and malignant neck pathologies are significantly different at 3T imaging, though larger studies are required to establish threshold ADC values that can applied in daily clinical practice.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The purpose of this work was to study differences in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values between benign and malignant head and neck lesions at 3T field strength imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Our study population in this retrospective study was derived from the patient population who had undergone routine neck 3T MR imaging (for clinical indications) from December 2005 to December 2006. There were 33 patients identified: 17 with benign and 16 with malignant pathologies. In all of the subjects, conventional MR imaging sequences were performed apart from diffusion-weighted sequences. The mean ADC values in the benign and malignant groups were compared using an unpaired t test with unequal variance with a P < 0.05 considered statistically significant. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant difference (P = .004) between the mean ADC values (in 10(-3) mm(2)/s) in the benign and malignant lesions (1.505 +/- 0.487; 95% confidence interval, 1.305-1.706, and 1.071 +/- 0.293; 95% confidence interval, 0.864-1.277, respectively). There were 2 malignant lesions with ADC values higher than 1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s and 5 benign lesions with ADC values less than 1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The lack of overlap of ADC values within 95% confidence limits suggests that a 3T ADC value of 1.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s may be the threshold value for differentiation between benign and malignant head and neck lesions. CONCLUSION: ADC values of benign and malignant neck pathologies are significantly different at 3T imaging, though larger studies are required to establish threshold ADC values that can applied in daily clinical practice.
Authors: Vincent Vandecaveye; Frederik De Keyzer; Sandra Nuyts; Karen Deraedt; Piet Dirix; Pascal Hamaekers; Vincent Vander Poorten; Pierre Delaere; Robert Hermans Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Thierry A G M Huisman; Thomas Loenneker; Gerd Barta; Matthias E Bellemann; Juergen Hennig; Joachim E Fischer; Kamil A Il'yasov Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-03-11 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Robin M Heidemann; Ozkan Ozsarlak; Paul M Parizel; Johan Michiels; Berthold Kiefer; Vladimir Jellus; Mathias Müller; Felix Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: V Vandecaveye; F de Keyzer; V Vander Poorten; K Deraedt; H Alaerts; W Landuyt; S Nuyts; R Hermans Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2006-04-26 Impact factor: 3.039
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: F Galli; N Flor; C Villa; G Franceschelli; G Pompili; G Felisati; F Biglioli; G P Cornalba Journal: Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital Date: 2010-04 Impact factor: 2.124
Authors: S F Nemec; C R Krestan; I M Noebauer-Huhmann; M Formanek; J Frühwald; P Peloschek; F Kainberger; C Czerny Journal: Radiologe Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 0.635
Authors: A Srinivasan; C J Galbán; T D Johnson; T L Chenevert; B D Ross; S K Mukherji Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-12-10 Impact factor: 3.825