Literature DB >> 20501719

Malignant hepatic tumors: short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficients with breath-hold and respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted MR imaging.

So Yeon Kim1, Seung Soo Lee, Jae Ho Byun, Seong Ho Park, Jeong Kon Kim, Bumwoo Park, Namkug Kim, Moon-Gyu Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively evaluate the reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in malignant hepatic tumors and to examine the influence of imaging methods, lesion location, and lesion size on the reproducibility of ADC measurement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved the study protocol, and informed consent was obtained. Forty-nine patients underwent both breath-hold and respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging on a 1.5-T system twice. Two independent readers measured the ADC of the largest malignant hepatic tumor for each patient on each image sets. Mean ADCs were compared between repeated acquisitions and imaging techniques by using the paired t test. Reproducibility of the ADC measurement and interobsever agreement were determined by using 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The effects of the imaging technique, lesion location, and lesion size on the reproducibility of the ADC measurements were assessed by comparing ICCs by using the z test.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the mean ADC between repeated acquisitions for breath-hold ([1.266-1.275] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec vs [1.285-1.290] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec; P = .572-.634) or respiratory-triggered ([1.487-1.502] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec vs [1.421-1.441] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec; P = .073-.091) DW MR imaging. The mean ADCs measured by using the respiratory-triggered method ([1.421-1.502] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec) were significantly higher than those measured by using the breath-hold method ([1.266-1.290] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec) (P < or = .001). The 95% limits of agreement between ADCs measured on repeated DW images were 28.7%-31.3% of the mean, and those between ADCs measured by two readers were 14.6%-22.5% of the mean. ADC measurement of malignant hepatic tumors tended to be more reproducible for right-lobe than for left-lobe lesions and for larger rather than smaller lesions.
CONCLUSION: Changes in ADCs of less than approximately 30% fall into the range of measurement error. Imaging technique significantly affected ADCs of malignant hepatic tumors. Lesion location and size are potentially influential on the reproducibility of ADC measurement. Copyright RSNA, 2010

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20501719     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.10091706

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  57 in total

1.  Novel imaging biomarkers of response to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

Authors:  Sylvain Favelier; Louis Estivalet; Pierre Pottecher; Romaric Loffroy
Journal:  Chin J Cancer Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 5.087

2.  Radiologic-pathologic analysis of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with HCC after TACE: diagnostic accuracy of 3D quantitative image analysis.

Authors:  Julius Chapiro; Laura D Wood; MingDe Lin; Rafael Duran; Toby Cornish; David Lesage; Vivek Charu; Rüdiger Schernthaner; Zhijun Wang; Vania Tacher; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Ihab R Kamel; Jean-François Geschwind
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 3.  Predicting outcomes in radiation oncology--multifactorial decision support systems.

Authors:  Philippe Lambin; Ruud G P M van Stiphout; Maud H W Starmans; Emmanuel Rios-Velazquez; Georgi Nalbantov; Hugo J W L Aerts; Erik Roelofs; Wouter van Elmpt; Paul C Boutros; Pierluigi Granone; Vincenzo Valentini; Adrian C Begg; Dirk De Ruysscher; Andre Dekker
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2012-11-20       Impact factor: 66.675

Review 4.  Diffusion-weighted imaging in pediatric body magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Govind B Chavhan; Pablo Caro-Dominguez
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-05-26

5.  Assessment of chronic hepatitis and fibrosis: comparison of MR elastography and diffusion-weighted imaging.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Daniel R Ganger; Josh Levitsky; Laura A Sternick; Robert J McCarthy; Zongming E Chen; Charles W Fasanati; Bradley Bolster; Saurabh Shah; Sven Zuehlsdorff; Reed A Omary; Richard L Ehman; Frank H Miller
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  Prediction of histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma using quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI: a retrospective multivendor study.

Authors:  Yusuke Ogihara; Yoshio Kitazume; Yoshihiro Iwasa; Shinichi Taura; Yoshiro Himeno; Tomo Kimura; Seishi Sawano; Shigehiko Terada; Minoru Tanabe; Yukihisa Saida; Ukihide Tateishi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Quantitative liver ADC measurements using diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 Tesla: evaluation of reproducibility and perfusion dependence using different techniques for respiratory compensation.

Authors:  Nis Elbrønd Larsen; Søren Haack; Lars Peter Skovgaard Larsen; Erik Morre Pedersen
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2013-03-13       Impact factor: 2.310

8.  Hypervascular solid-appearing serous cystic neoplasms of the pancreas: Differential diagnosis with neuroendocrine tumours.

Authors:  Hye Sun Park; So Yeon Kim; Seung-Mo Hong; Seong Ho Park; Seung Soo Lee; Jae Ho Byun; Jin Hee Kim; Hyoung Jung Kim; Moon-Gyu Lee
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Error model for reduction of cardiac and respiratory motion effects in quantitative liver DW-MRI.

Authors:  Paul Murphy; Tanya Wolfson; Anthony Gamst; Claude Sirlin; Mark Bydder
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 10.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: techniques and applications.

Authors:  Sara Lewis; Hadrien Dyvorne; Yong Cui; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 2.266

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.