Shiteng Suo1, Naier Lin1, He Wang2, Liangbin Zhang3, Rui Wang3, Su Zhang3, Jia Hua1, Jianrong Xu1. 1. Department of Radiology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Philips Research China, Shanghai, China. 3. School of Biomedical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare three different curve-fitting methods for intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis in breast cancer. METHODS: Diffusion-weighted imaging was acquired in 30 patients with breast cancer using seven b-values (0-800 s/mm(2) ). Three curve-fitting methods were used for biexponential IVIM analysis: a. Direct estimation of D (diffusion coefficient), D* (pseudodiffusion coefficient) and f (perfusion fraction) (Method 1), b. Estimation of D first and then D* and f (Method 2), c. Estimation of D and f first and then D* (Method 3). Goodness-of-fit, parameter precision (coefficient of variance [CV]), parameter difference and correlation with relative enhancement ratio (RER) and initial area under the curve (IAUC) from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI of the three methods were determined and compared. RESULTS: Among the three biexponential methods, Method 1 best described most of the pixels (63.20% based on R(2) ; 44.52% based on Akaike Information Criteria). The CV of D calculated from Method 2/3 (14.95%/13.90%), the CV of D* from Method 2 (77.04%) and the CV of f from Method 3 (80.87%) were the lowest among the three methods. Significant difference was observed for each IVIM-derived parameter calculated from all the three methods (P = 0.000-0.005). Only the perfusion-related f value calculated from Method 2 was correlated with RER (r = 0.548; P = 0.002) or IAUC (r = 0.561; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: IVIM-derived parameters differ depending on the calculation methods. The two-step fitting method with D value estimation first was correlated with DCE MRI perfusion.
BACKGROUND: To compare three different curve-fitting methods for intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis in breast cancer. METHODS: Diffusion-weighted imaging was acquired in 30 patients with breast cancer using seven b-values (0-800 s/mm(2) ). Three curve-fitting methods were used for biexponential IVIM analysis: a. Direct estimation of D (diffusion coefficient), D* (pseudodiffusion coefficient) and f (perfusion fraction) (Method 1), b. Estimation of D first and then D* and f (Method 2), c. Estimation of D and f first and then D* (Method 3). Goodness-of-fit, parameter precision (coefficient of variance [CV]), parameter difference and correlation with relative enhancement ratio (RER) and initial area under the curve (IAUC) from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI of the three methods were determined and compared. RESULTS: Among the three biexponential methods, Method 1 best described most of the pixels (63.20% based on R(2) ; 44.52% based on Akaike Information Criteria). The CV of D calculated from Method 2/3 (14.95%/13.90%), the CV of D* from Method 2 (77.04%) and the CV of f from Method 3 (80.87%) were the lowest among the three methods. Significant difference was observed for each IVIM-derived parameter calculated from all the three methods (P = 0.000-0.005). Only the perfusion-related f value calculated from Method 2 was correlated with RER (r = 0.548; P = 0.002) or IAUC (r = 0.561; P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: IVIM-derived parameters differ depending on the calculation methods. The two-step fitting method with D value estimation first was correlated with DCE MRI perfusion.
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