PURPOSE: To compare apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) with distributed diffusion coefficients (DDCs) in high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with high-grade gliomas prospectively underwent diffusion-weighted MRI. Traditional ADC maps were created using b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). In addition, DDC maps were created by applying the stretched-exponential model using b-values of 0, 1000, 2000, and 4000 s/mm(2). Whole-tumor ADCs and DDCs (in 10(-3) mm(2)/s) were measured and analyzed with a paired t-test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS: Tumor ADCs (1.14 +/- 0.26) were significantly lower (P = 0.0001) than DDCs (1.64 +/- 0.71). Tumor ADCs and DDCs were strongly correlated (R = 0.9716; P < 0.0001), but mean bias +/- limits of agreement between tumor ADCs and DDCs was -0.50 +/- 0.90. There was a clear trend toward greater discordance between ADC and DDC at high ADC values. CONCLUSION: Under the assumption that the stretched-exponential model provides a more accurate estimate of the average diffusion rate than the mono-exponential model, our results suggest that for a little diffusion attenuation the mono-exponential fit works rather well for quantifying diffusion in high-grade gliomas, whereas it works less well for a greater degree of diffusion attenuation.
PURPOSE: To compare apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) with distributed diffusion coefficients (DDCs) in high-grade gliomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty patients with high-grade gliomas prospectively underwent diffusion-weighted MRI. Traditional ADC maps were created using b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). In addition, DDC maps were created by applying the stretched-exponential model using b-values of 0, 1000, 2000, and 4000 s/mm(2). Whole-tumor ADCs and DDCs (in 10(-3) mm(2)/s) were measured and analyzed with a paired t-test, Pearson's correlation coefficient, and the Bland-Altman method. RESULTS:Tumor ADCs (1.14 +/- 0.26) were significantly lower (P = 0.0001) than DDCs (1.64 +/- 0.71). Tumor ADCs and DDCs were strongly correlated (R = 0.9716; P < 0.0001), but mean bias +/- limits of agreement between tumor ADCs and DDCs was -0.50 +/- 0.90. There was a clear trend toward greater discordance between ADC and DDC at high ADC values. CONCLUSION: Under the assumption that the stretched-exponential model provides a more accurate estimate of the average diffusion rate than the mono-exponential model, our results suggest that for a little diffusion attenuation the mono-exponential fit works rather well for quantifying diffusion in high-grade gliomas, whereas it works less well for a greater degree of diffusion attenuation.
Authors: Kevin M Bennett; Kathleen M Schmainda; Raoqiong Tong Bennett; Daniel B Rowe; Hanbing Lu; James S Hyde Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Anwar R Padhani; Guoying Liu; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas L Chenevert; Harriet C Thoeny; Taro Takahara; Andrew Dzik-Jurasz; Brian D Ross; Marc Van Cauteren; David Collins; Dima A Hammoud; Gordon J S Rustin; Bachir Taouli; Peter L Choyke Journal: Neoplasia Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 5.715
Authors: Ararat Chakhoyan; Davis C Woodworth; Robert J Harris; Albert Lai; Phioanh L Nghiemphu; Linda M Liau; Whitney B Pope; Timothy F Cloughesy; Benjamin M Ellingson Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: A Hilario; A Ramos; A Perez-Nuñez; E Salvador; J M Millan; A Lagares; J M Sepulveda; P Gonzalez-Leon; A Hernandez-Lain; J R Ricoy Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-12-29 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Benjamin A Hoff; Thomas L Chenevert; Mahaveer S Bhojani; Thomas C Kwee; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Denis Le Bihan; Brian D Ross; Craig J Galbán Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: F Natali; C Dolce; J Peters; C Stelletta; B Demé; J Ollivier; M Boehm; G Leduc; I Piazza; A Cupane; E L Barbier Journal: J R Soc Interface Date: 2019-08-14 Impact factor: 4.118