OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal b-value of 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for visualizing pancreatic adenocarcinomas METHODS: Fifty-five patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma underwent DWI with different b-values (b = 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 s/mm(2)) at 3.0 T. For each b-value, we retrospectively evaluated DWI findings of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (clear hyperintensity relative to the surrounding pancreas, hyperintensity with an unclear distal border, and isointensity) and image quality, and measured tumour-to-pancreas signal intensity (SI) ratios. DWI findings, image quality, and tumour-to-pancreas SI ratios were compared between the four b-values. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher incidence of tumours showing clear hyperintensity on DWI with b-value of 1500 s/mm(2) than on that with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001), and on DWI with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) than on that with b-value of 500 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001). The tumour-to-distal pancreas SI ratio was higher with b-value of 1500 s/mm(2) than with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001), and with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) than with b-value of 500 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001). A lower image quality was obtained at increasing b-values (P < 0.001); the lowest scores were observed with b-value of 2000 s/mm(2). CONCLUSIONS: The use of b = 1500 s/mm(2) for 3.0-T DWI can improve the delineation of pancreatic adenocarcinomas. KEY POINTS: • Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has been used for diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma • The techniques for DWI, including the choice of b-values, vary considerably • DWI often fails to delineate pancreatic adenocarcinomas because of hyperintense pancreas • DWI with a higher b-value can improve the tumour delineation • The lowest image quality was obtained on DWI with b-value = 2000 s/mm (2).
OBJECTIVES: To determine the optimal b-value of 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for visualizing pancreatic adenocarcinomas METHODS: Fifty-five patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma underwent DWI with different b-values (b = 500, 1000, 1500, and 2000 s/mm(2)) at 3.0 T. For each b-value, we retrospectively evaluated DWI findings of pancreatic adenocarcinomas (clear hyperintensity relative to the surrounding pancreas, hyperintensity with an unclear distal border, and isointensity) and image quality, and measured tumour-to-pancreas signal intensity (SI) ratios. DWI findings, image quality, and tumour-to-pancreas SI ratios were compared between the four b-values. RESULTS: There was a significantly higher incidence of tumours showing clear hyperintensity on DWI with b-value of 1500 s/mm(2) than on that with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001), and on DWI with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) than on that with b-value of 500 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001). The tumour-to-distal pancreas SI ratio was higher with b-value of 1500 s/mm(2) than with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001), and with b-value of 1000 s/mm(2) than with b-value of 500 s/mm(2) (P < 0.001). A lower image quality was obtained at increasing b-values (P < 0.001); the lowest scores were observed with b-value of 2000 s/mm(2). CONCLUSIONS: The use of b = 1500 s/mm(2) for 3.0-T DWI can improve the delineation of pancreatic adenocarcinomas. KEY POINTS: • Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has been used for diagnosing pancreatic adenocarcinoma • The techniques for DWI, including the choice of b-values, vary considerably • DWI often fails to delineate pancreatic adenocarcinomas because of hyperintense pancreas • DWI with a higher b-value can improve the tumour delineation • The lowest image quality was obtained on DWI with b-value = 2000 s/mm (2).
Entities:
Keywords:
Adenocarcinoma; Diffusion; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pancreas; Pancreatitis
Authors: Yi Wang; Zongming E Chen; Paul Nikolaidis; Robert J McCarthy; Laura Merrick; Laura A Sternick; Jeanne M Horowitz; Vahid Yaghmai; Frank H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Nicole Hindman; Ruth P Lim; Kasturi Das; James S Babb; Thais C Mussi; Samir S Taneja Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Franklin de Freitas Tertulino; Vladimir Schraibman; José Celso Ardengh; Danilo Cerqueira do Espírito-Santo; Sergio Aron Ajzen; Franz Robert Apodaca Torrez; Edson Jose Lobo; Jacob Szejnfeld; Suzan Menasce Goldman Journal: Abdom Imaging Date: 2015-02
Authors: Jana Taron; Petros Martirosian; Thomas Kuestner; Nina F Schwenzer; Ahmed Othman; Jakob Weiß; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Konstantin Nikolaou; Christina Schraml Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Felix N Harder; Eva Jung; Sean McTavish; Anh Tu Van; Kilian Weiss; Sebastian Ziegelmayer; Joshua Gawlitza; Philip Gouder; Omar Kamal; Marcus R Makowski; Fabian K Lohöfer; Dimitrios C Karampinos; Rickmer F Braren Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Giuseppe Corrias; Mitchell C Raeside; Andrea Agostini; Sandra Huicochea-Castellanos; David Aramburu-Nunez; Ramesh Paudyal; Amita Shukla-Dave; Olga Smelianskaia; Marinela Capanu; Junting Zheng; Maggie Fung; David P Kelsen; Debra A Mangino; Mark E Robson; Deborah J Goldfrank; Jean Carter; Peter J Allen; Bettina Conti; Serena Monti; Richard K G Do; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 5.315