Hai Ming Li1,2, Shu Hui Zhao3, Jin Wei Qiang1, Guo Fu Zhang4, Feng Feng2, Feng Hua Ma4, Yong Ai Li1, Wei Yong Gu5. 1. Department of Radiology, Jinshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China. 2. Department of Radiology, Nantong Cancer Hospital, Nantong University, Nantong, Jiangsu, P.R. China. 3. Department of Radiology, Xinhua Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, P.R. China. 4. Department of Radiology, Obstetrics & Gynecology Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, P.R. China. 5. Department of Pathology, Obstetrics & Gynecology Hospital, Shanghai Medical College, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200011, P.R. China.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the use of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors (MEOTs) and to correlate DKI parameters with Ki-67 expression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive patients with epithelial ovarian tumors (17 borderline epithelial ovarian tumors, BEOTs; 35 MEOTs) were prospectively evaluated using DKI with b values of 0, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 s/mm2 and standard diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with b values of 0 and 1000 s/mm2 using a 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit. The kurtosis (K) and diffusion coefficient (D) from DKI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from standard DWI were measured, compared, and correlated with Ki-67 expression between the two groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: The K value was significantly lower in BEOTs than in MEOTs (0.55 ± 0.09 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2), while the D and ADC values were significantly higher in BEOTs than in MEOTs (2.27 ± 0.35 vs. 1.39 ± 0.37 and 1.72 ± 0.36 vs. 1.1 ± 0.25, respectively) (P < 0.001). For differentiating between BEOTs and MEOTs, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.2%, 94.3%, and 92.3% for K value; 88.2%, 91.4%, and 90.4% for D value; and 88.2%, 88.6%, and 88.5% for ADC value, respectively. However, there were no differences in the diagnostic performances among the three parameters above (K vs. ADC, P = 0.203; D vs. ADC, P = 0.148; K vs. D, P = 0.904). The K value was positively correlated with Ki-67 expression (r = 0.699), while the D and ADC values were negatively correlated with Ki-67 expression (r = -0.680, -0.665, respectively). CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings demonstrate that DKI is an alternative tool for differentiating BEOTs from MEOTs, and is correlated with Ki-67 expression. However, no added value is found for DKI compared with standard DWI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1499-1506.
PURPOSE: To investigate the use of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors (MEOTs) and to correlate DKI parameters with Ki-67 expression. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-two consecutive patients with epithelial ovarian tumors (17 borderline epithelial ovarian tumors, BEOTs; 35 MEOTs) were prospectively evaluated using DKI with b values of 0, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 2500 s/mm2 and standard diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with b values of 0 and 1000 s/mm2 using a 1.5T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) unit. The kurtosis (K) and diffusion coefficient (D) from DKI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from standard DWI were measured, compared, and correlated with Ki-67 expression between the two groups. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: The K value was significantly lower in BEOTs than in MEOTs (0.55 ± 0.09 vs. 0.9 ± 0.2), while the D and ADC values were significantly higher in BEOTs than in MEOTs (2.27 ± 0.35 vs. 1.39 ± 0.37 and 1.72 ± 0.36 vs. 1.1 ± 0.25, respectively) (P < 0.001). For differentiating between BEOTs and MEOTs, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 88.2%, 94.3%, and 92.3% for K value; 88.2%, 91.4%, and 90.4% for D value; and 88.2%, 88.6%, and 88.5% for ADC value, respectively. However, there were no differences in the diagnostic performances among the three parameters above (K vs. ADC, P = 0.203; D vs. ADC, P = 0.148; K vs. D, P = 0.904). The K value was positively correlated with Ki-67 expression (r = 0.699), while the D and ADC values were negatively correlated with Ki-67 expression (r = -0.680, -0.665, respectively). CONCLUSION: Preliminary findings demonstrate that DKI is an alternative tool for differentiating BEOTs from MEOTs, and is correlated with Ki-67 expression. However, no added value is found for DKI compared with standard DWI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2017;46:1499-1506.
Authors: Surrin S Deen; Andrew N Priest; Mary A McLean; Andrew B Gill; Cara Brodie; Robin Crawford; John Latimer; Peter Baldwin; Helena M Earl; Christine Parkinson; Sarah Smith; Charlotte Hodgkin; Ilse Patterson; Helen Addley; Susan Freeman; Penny Moyle; Mercedes Jimenez-Linan; Martin J Graves; Evis Sala; James D Brenton; Ferdia A Gallagher Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-07-24 Impact factor: 4.379