M Sumi1, T Nakamura. 1. Department of Radiology and Cancer Biology, Nagasaki University School of Dentistry, Nagasaki, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: IVIM MR imaging provides perfusion and diffusion information with a single diffusion-weighted MR image. We determined whether PP and D differ among various types of head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort included 123 head and neck tumors: 30 SCCs, 28 benign and 20 malignant SG tumors, 36 lymphomas, and 9 schwannomas. The D and PP values were determined by using b-values of 0, 500, and 1000 s/mm(2) based on the IVIM model. RESULTS: The PP values (lymphomas, 0.09 ± 0.04; SCCs, 0.15 ± 0.04; and malignant SG tumors, 0.22 ± 0.07) and D values (0.47 ± 0.07 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, 0.82 ± 0.17 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, and 1.03 ± 0.16 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively) were significantly different among the malignant tumors (P < .01). These values were also significantly different between pleomorphic adenomas (0.13 ± 0.02 and 1.44 ± 0.39 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) and Warthin tumors (0.19 ± 0.04 and 0.73 ± 0.22 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P < .001). The PP values of malignant SG tumors were significantly different from those of pleomorphic adenomas (P = .001) and the D values of the malignant SG tumors were significantly different from those of pleomorphic adenomas (P = .002) and Warthin tumors (P = .007). Schwannomas had large PP (0.23 ± 0.08) and D values (1.26 ± 0.20 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s), greatly overlapping those of some SG tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck tumors had distinctive PP and D values by using IVIM MR imaging.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: IVIM MR imaging provides perfusion and diffusion information with a single diffusion-weighted MR image. We determined whether PP and D differ among various types of head and neck tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study cohort included 123 head and neck tumors: 30 SCCs, 28 benign and 20 malignant SG tumors, 36 lymphomas, and 9 schwannomas. The D and PP values were determined by using b-values of 0, 500, and 1000 s/mm(2) based on the IVIM model. RESULTS: The PP values (lymphomas, 0.09 ± 0.04; SCCs, 0.15 ± 0.04; and malignant SG tumors, 0.22 ± 0.07) and D values (0.47 ± 0.07 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, 0.82 ± 0.17 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, and 1.03 ± 0.16 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, respectively) were significantly different among the malignant tumors (P < .01). These values were also significantly different between pleomorphic adenomas (0.13 ± 0.02 and 1.44 ± 0.39 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) and Warthin tumors (0.19 ± 0.04 and 0.73 ± 0.22 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s) (P < .001). The PP values of malignant SG tumors were significantly different from those of pleomorphic adenomas (P = .001) and the D values of the malignant SG tumors were significantly different from those of pleomorphic adenomas (P = .002) and Warthin tumors (P = .007). Schwannomas had large PP (0.23 ± 0.08) and D values (1.26 ± 0.20 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s), greatly overlapping those of some SG tumor types. CONCLUSIONS: Head and neck tumors had distinctive PP and D values by using IVIM MR imaging.
Authors: Christina Schraml; Andreas Boss; Petros Martirosian; Nina F Schwenzer; Claus D Claussen; Fritz Schick Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: C R Habermann; C Arndt; J Graessner; L Diestel; K U Petersen; F Reitmeier; J O Ussmueller; G Adam; M Jaehne Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-01-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Vincent Lai; Xiao Li; Victor Ho Fun Lee; Ka On Lam; Daniel Yee Tak Fong; Bingsheng Huang; Queenie Chan; Pek Lan Khong Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-08-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Thomas Hauser; Marco Essig; Alexandra Jensen; Lars Gerigk; Frederik Bernd Laun; Marc Münter; Dirk Simon; Bram Stieltjes Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2013-02-17 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: K Kikuchi; A Hiwatashi; O Togao; K Yamashita; R Kamei; D Momosaka; N Hata; K Iihara; S O Suzuki; T Iwaki; H Honda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Z Xiao; Z Tang; J Qiang; S Wang; W Qian; Y Zhong; R Wang; J Wang; L Wu; W Tang; Z Zhang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-01-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gene Young Cho; Linda Moy; Sungheon G Kim; Steven H Baete; Melanie Moccaldi; James S Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Eric E Sigmund Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Yan Bai; Yusong Lin; Jie Tian; Dapeng Shi; Jingliang Cheng; E Mark Haacke; Xiaohua Hong; Bo Ma; Jinyuan Zhou; Meiyun Wang Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yao Ding; John D Hazle; Abdallah S R Mohamed; Steven J Frank; Brian P Hobbs; Rivka R Colen; G Brandon Gunn; Jihong Wang; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Adam S Garden; Stephen Y Lai; David I Rosenthal; Clifton D Fuller Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 4.044