Literature DB >> 25836022

Characterization of Liver Tumors by Diffusion-Weighted Imaging: Comparison of Diagnostic Performance Using the Mean and Minimum Apparent Diffusion Coefficient.

Tomohiro Namimoto1, Masataka Nakagawa, Yuuki Kizaki, Ryo Itatani, Masafumi Kidoh, Daisuke Utsunomiya, Seitaro Oda, Yasuyuki Yamashita.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC(min)) values of benign and malignant hepatic lesions based on diffusion-weighted imaging and to compare the diagnostic performance of ADC(min) and mean ADC (ADC(mean)) values for differentiating between benign and malignant tumors of the liver.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively subjected 240 patients with 195 malignant (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC], n = 137; metastases, n = 44; cholangiocellular carcinoma [CCC], n = 14) and 45 benign tumors (hemangiomas, n = 37; focal nodular hyperplasia [FNH], n = 8). Both ADC(mean) and ADC(min) were evaluated independently by 2 readers, the sensitivity and specificity for the detection of malignancy were calculated, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were generated. To determine interobserver agreement, we calculated the Pearson correlation coefficient.
RESULTS: Mean ADC (×10 mm/s) was 1.19 for malignant (HCC, 1.15; metastasis, 1.23; CCC, 1.51) and 2.01 for benign tumors (hemangioma, 2.09; FNH, 1.52; P < 0.001). Minimum ADC was 0.81 for malignant (HCC, 0.79; metastasis, 0.81; CCC, 0.91) and 1.62 for benign tumors (hemangioma, 1.66; FNH, 1.28; P < 0.001). The sensitivity, specificity, and the calculated area under the ROC curve for diagnosing malignant lesions were 86.2%, 86.7%, and 0.942 (reader 1) and 88.7%, 88.9%, and 0.939 (reader 2) for ADC(mean); they were of 92.3%, 97.8%, and 0.984 (reader 1) and 94.9%, 97.8%, and 0.983 (reader 2) for ADC(min).
CONCLUSIONS: Mean ADC and ADC(min) were valuable for differentiating between malignant and benign hepatic lesions. The area under the ROC curve of ADC(min) was significant higher than that of ADC(mean).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25836022     DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000228

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  10 in total

Review 1.  Diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver: challenges and some solutions for the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion.

Authors:  Yi Xiang J Wang; Hua Huang; Cun-Jing Zheng; Ben-Heng Xiao; Olivier Chevallier; Wei Wang
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-04-15

2.  Diffusion-Weighted Imaging with Two Different b-Values in Detection of Solid Focal Liver Lesions.

Authors:  Da-wei Yang; Ke-yang Wang; Xun Yao; Hui-yi Ye; Tao Jiang; Yuan Liu; Jia-yin Gao; Min Chen; Cheng Zhou; Zheng-han Yang
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-02-25       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  3D variable flip angle T1 mapping for differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions at 3T: comparison with diffusion weighted imaging.

Authors:  Fei Wang; Qing Yang; Yupei Zhang; Jun Liu; Mengxiao Liu; Juan Zhu
Journal:  BMC Med Imaging       Date:  2022-08-18       Impact factor: 2.795

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in differentiating malignant from benign solid liver lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Farhad Nalaini; Fatemeh Shahbazi; Seyedeh Maryam Mousavinezhad; Ali Ansari; Mohammadgharib Salehi
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 3.629

5.  The Spatial Relationship between Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Standardized Uptake Value of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose Has a Crucial Influence on the Numeric Correlation of Both Parameters in PET/MRI of Lung Tumors.

Authors:  Alexander W Sauter; Bram Stieltjes; Thomas Weikert; Sergios Gatidis; Mark Wiese; Markus Klarhöfer; Damian Wild; Didier Lardinois; Jens Bremerich; Gregor Sommer
Journal:  Contrast Media Mol Imaging       Date:  2017-12-17       Impact factor: 3.161

6.  Evaluation of ADCratio on liver MRI diffusion to discriminate benign versus malignant solid liver lesions.

Authors:  Tarun Pankaj Jain; Wen Ter Kan; Sean Edward; Helen Fernon; Renuvathy Kansan Naider
Journal:  Eur J Radiol Open       Date:  2018-11-15

7.  Associations Between Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Value With Pathological Type, Histologic Grade, and Presence of Lymph Node Metastases of Esophageal Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yating Wang; Genji Bai; Lili Guo; Wei Chen
Journal:  Technol Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2019 Jan-Dec

8.  Evaluation of the Effect of Patient Preparation Using Castor Oil on ADC Value of Focal Liver Lesion.

Authors:  Kawa Abdulla Mahmood; Rezheen Jamal Rashid; Salah Mohammed Fateh; Naser Abdullah Mohammed
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2021-02-16

9.  Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient values for the differentiation of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma from gastrointestinal adenocarcinoma liver metastases.

Authors:  Temel Fatih Yilmaz; Mehmet Ali Gultekin; Hacı Mehmet Turk; Mehmet Besiroglu; Dilek Hacer Cesme; Melih Simsek; Alpay Alkan; Huseyin Toprak
Journal:  Radiol Oncol       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 2.991

10.  Differentiating Liver Hemangioma from Metastatic Tumor Using T2-enhanced Spin-echo Imaging with a Time-reversed Gradient-echo Sequence in the Hepatobiliary Phase of Gadoxetic Acid-enhanced MR Imaging.

Authors:  Yukihisa Takayama; Akihiro Nishie; Daisuke Okamoto; Nobuhiro Fujita; Yoshiki Asayama; Yasuhiro Ushijima; Tomoharu Yoshizumi; Masami Yoneyama; Kousei Ishigami
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2021-04-20       Impact factor: 2.760

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.