OBJECT: By measuring the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of liver parenchyma and focal hepatic lesions (FHL) we proposed to investigate the utility of ADC in the differential diagnosis of hepatic disease and to determine the influence of region of interest (ROI) characteristics in those measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients with at least one supracentimetric FHL, or parenchymal abnormality, were retrospectively evaluated. Diagnosis was based on histopathologic data or, alternatively, on a combination of consensus between imaging methods and 24 months of follow-up. Ninety lesions were evaluated with respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted imaging (b values: 50 and 700 s/mm(2)): 14 hepatocellular carcinomas, 18 metastases, 10 focal nodular hyperplasias, four adenomas, 30 hemangiomas and 14 cysts. ADC of hepatic parenchyma was measured by placing ROIs in four different segments, and in FHLs by using three circular 1 cm(2) ROIs and one ROI encompassing the full lesion. Data was statistically analyzed (p < 0.05 considered significant), and a receiver operating characteristic curve was assessed to evaluate the accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy. RESULTS: Our measurements showed that parenchyma ADC was significantly higher in segment II and that ADCs of malignant lesions were significantly lower than those of benign lesions (p < 0.001). There was significant overlap between benign solid lesions and malignant lesions and the area under the curve for malignancy was 0.939 (sensitivity 89.7 %, specificity 90.6 %), using a cutoff of 1.43 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. No significant difference was found between ROIs of different characteristics. CONCLUSION: ADC measurements can help to characterize FHLs and differentiate normal from pathological parenchyma. Any ROI above 1 cm(2) can provide accurate ADC measurements in homogenous lesions.
OBJECT: By measuring the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of liver parenchyma and focal hepatic lesions (FHL) we proposed to investigate the utility of ADC in the differential diagnosis of hepatic disease and to determine the influence of region of interest (ROI) characteristics in those measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-three patients with at least one supracentimetric FHL, or parenchymal abnormality, were retrospectively evaluated. Diagnosis was based on histopathologic data or, alternatively, on a combination of consensus between imaging methods and 24 months of follow-up. Ninety lesions were evaluated with respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted imaging (b values: 50 and 700 s/mm(2)): 14 hepatocellular carcinomas, 18 metastases, 10 focal nodular hyperplasias, four adenomas, 30 hemangiomas and 14 cysts. ADC of hepatic parenchyma was measured by placing ROIs in four different segments, and in FHLs by using three circular 1 cm(2) ROIs and one ROI encompassing the full lesion. Data was statistically analyzed (p < 0.05 considered significant), and a receiver operating characteristic curve was assessed to evaluate the accuracy for the diagnosis of malignancy. RESULTS: Our measurements showed that parenchyma ADC was significantly higher in segment II and that ADCs of malignant lesions were significantly lower than those of benign lesions (p < 0.001). There was significant overlap between benign solid lesions and malignant lesions and the area under the curve for malignancy was 0.939 (sensitivity 89.7 %, specificity 90.6 %), using a cutoff of 1.43 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. No significant difference was found between ROIs of different characteristics. CONCLUSION: ADC measurements can help to characterize FHLs and differentiate normal from pathological parenchyma. Any ROI above 1 cm(2) can provide accurate ADC measurements in homogenous lesions.
Authors: Ihab R Kamel; David A Bluemke; John Eng; Eleni Liapi; Wells Messersmith; Diane K Reyes; Jean-Francois H Geschwind Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Tejas Parikh; Stephen J Drew; Vivian S Lee; Samson Wong; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas C Kwee; Taro Takahara; Tetsu Niwa; Marko K Ivancevic; Gwenael Herigault; Marc Van Cauteren; Peter R Luijten Journal: MAGMA Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 2.310
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: Jana Taron; Petros Martirosian; Nina F Schwenzer; Michael Erb; Thomas Kuestner; Jakob Weiß; Ahmed Othman; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Schraml Journal: MAGMA Date: 2016-04-02 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Jie Zhu; Jie Zhang; Jia-Yin Gao; Jin-Ning Li; Da-Wei Yang; Min Chen; Cheng Zhou; Zheng-Han Yang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Francesco Mungai; Mario Morone; Alberta Villanacci; Maria Pia Bondioni; Lorenzo Nicola Mazzoni; Luigi Grazioli; Stefano Colagrande Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 1.889