PURPOSE: To determine whether a mono-, bi- or tri-exponential model best fits the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) signal of normal livers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pilot and validation studies were conducted in 38 and 36 patients with normal livers, respectively. The DWI sequence was performed using single-shot echoplanar imaging with 11 (pilot study) and 16 (validation study) b values. In each study, data from all patients were used to model the IVIM signal of normal liver. Diffusion coefficients (Di ± standard deviations) and their fractions (fi ± standard deviations) were determined from each model. The models were compared using the extra sum-of-squares test and information criteria. RESULTS: The tri-exponential model provided a better fit than both the bi- and mono-exponential models. The tri-exponential IVIM model determined three diffusion compartments: a slow (D1 = 1.35 ± 0.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; f1 = 72.7 ± 0.9 %), a fast (D2 = 26.50 ± 2.49 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; f2 = 13.7 ± 0.6 %) and a very fast (D3 = 404.00 ± 43.7 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; f3 = 13.5 ± 0.8 %) diffusion compartment [results from the validation study]. The very fast compartment contributed to the IVIM signal only for b values ≤15 s/mm(2) CONCLUSION: The tri-exponential model provided the best fit for IVIM signal decay in the liver over the 0-800 s/mm(2) range. In IVIM analysis of normal liver, a third very fast (pseudo)diffusion component might be relevant. KEY POINTS: • For normal liver, tri-exponential IVIM model might be superior to bi-exponential • A very fast compartment (D = 404.00 ± 43.7 × 10 (-3) mm (2) /s; f = 13.5 ± 0.8 %) is determined from the tri-exponential model • The compartment contributes to the IVIM signal only for b ≤ 15 s/mm(2).
PURPOSE: To determine whether a mono-, bi- or tri-exponential model best fits the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) signal of normal livers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The pilot and validation studies were conducted in 38 and 36 patients with normal livers, respectively. The DWI sequence was performed using single-shot echoplanar imaging with 11 (pilot study) and 16 (validation study) b values. In each study, data from all patients were used to model the IVIM signal of normal liver. Diffusion coefficients (Di ± standard deviations) and their fractions (fi ± standard deviations) were determined from each model. The models were compared using the extra sum-of-squares test and information criteria. RESULTS: The tri-exponential model provided a better fit than both the bi- and mono-exponential models. The tri-exponential IVIM model determined three diffusion compartments: a slow (D1 = 1.35 ± 0.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; f1 = 72.7 ± 0.9 %), a fast (D2 = 26.50 ± 2.49 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; f2 = 13.7 ± 0.6 %) and a very fast (D3 = 404.00 ± 43.7 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s; f3 = 13.5 ± 0.8 %) diffusion compartment [results from the validation study]. The very fast compartment contributed to the IVIM signal only for b values ≤15 s/mm(2) CONCLUSION: The tri-exponential model provided the best fit for IVIM signal decay in the liver over the 0-800 s/mm(2) range. In IVIM analysis of normal liver, a third very fast (pseudo)diffusion component might be relevant. KEY POINTS: • For normal liver, tri-exponential IVIM model might be superior to bi-exponential • A very fast compartment (D = 404.00 ± 43.7 × 10 (-3) mm (2) /s; f = 13.5 ± 0.8 %) is determined from the tri-exponential model • The compartment contributes to the IVIM signal only for b ≤ 15 s/mm(2).
Authors: Hadrien A Dyvorne; Nicola Galea; Thomas Nevers; M Isabel Fiel; David Carpenter; Edmund Wong; Matthew Orton; Andre de Oliveira; Thorsten Feiweier; Marie-Louise Vachon; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Benedicte M A Delattre; Magalie Viallon; Hongjiang Wei; Yuemin M Zhu; Thorsten Feiweier; Vinay M Pai; Han Wen; Pierre Croisille Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: P Mürtz; A M Sprinkart; M Reick; C C Pieper; A-H Schievelkamp; R König; H H Schild; W A Willinek; G M Kukuk Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-04-18 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sophie van Baalen; Alexander Leemans; Pieter Dik; Marc R Lilien; Bennie Ten Haken; Martijn Froeling Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-10-27 Impact factor: 4.813