BACKGROUND: Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) has gained interest as an imaging modality for assessment of tumor extension and response to cancer treatment. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the choice of b-values on the calculation of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) for locally advanced gynecological cancer and to estimate a stable interval of diffusion gradients that allows for best comparison of the ADC between patients and institutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six patients underwent a high resolution single shot EPI based DWI scan with 16 different diffusion gradients on a 3 Tesla Philips Achieva MR-scanner. Data analysis was performed by applying a monoexponential and a biexponential model to the acquired data. The biexponential function models the effect of both perfusion and diffusion. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: ADC changes of up to 40% were seen with the use of different b-values. Using a lower b-value ≥ 150 s/mm(2) and an upper b-value ≥ 700 s/mm(2) limited the variation to less that 10% from the reference ADC value. By eliminating the contribution of perfusion the uncertainty of quantitative ADC values were significantly reduced.
BACKGROUND: Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) has gained interest as an imaging modality for assessment of tumor extension and response to cancer treatment. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the choice of b-values on the calculation of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) for locally advanced gynecological cancer and to estimate a stable interval of diffusion gradients that allows for best comparison of the ADC between patients and institutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six patients underwent a high resolution single shot EPI based DWI scan with 16 different diffusion gradients on a 3 Tesla Philips Achieva MR-scanner. Data analysis was performed by applying a monoexponential and a biexponential model to the acquired data. The biexponential function models the effect of both perfusion and diffusion. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: ADC changes of up to 40% were seen with the use of different b-values. Using a lower b-value ≥ 150 s/mm(2) and an upper b-value ≥ 700 s/mm(2) limited the variation to less that 10% from the reference ADC value. By eliminating the contribution of perfusion the uncertainty of quantitative ADC values were significantly reduced.
Authors: Moti Freiman; Stephan D Voss; Robert V Mulkern; Jeannette M Perez-Rossello; Michael J Callahan; Simon K Warfield Journal: Med Phys Date: 2012-08 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Dariya I Malyarenko; Scott D Swanson; Amaresha S Konar; Eve LoCastro; Ramesh Paudyal; Michael Z Liu; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Amita Shukla-Dave; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Tomography Date: 2019-03
Authors: Dariya I Malyarenko; David Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Alina Tudorica; Karl G Helmer; Lori R Arlinghaus; Michael A Jacobs; Guido Jajamovich; Bachir Taouli; Thomas E Yankeelov; Wei Huang; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-05-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kishor Karki; Geoffrey D Hugo; John C Ford; Kathryn M Olsen; Siddharth Saraiya; Robert Groves; Elisabeth Weiss Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2015-09-25 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Jeff L Zhang; Steven Baete; Riccardo Lattanzi; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Sungheon Kim; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christine H Feng; Christopher C Conlin; Kanha Batra; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Roshan Karunamuni; Aaron Simon; Joshua Kuperman; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Michael E Hahn; Anders M Dale; Tyler M Seibert Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-03-31 Impact factor: 5.119