Qingxia Wu1, Dandan Zheng2, Ligang Shi3, Mingbo Liu4, Meiyun Wang1, Dapeng Shi5. 1. Radiological Department of Henan Provincial People's Hospital, No. 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450003, China. 2. GE Healthcare, MR Research China, Beijing, China. 3. Pathological Department of Henan Provincial People's Hospital, No. 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450003, China. 4. Radiotherapeutical Department of Henan Provincial People's Hospital, No. 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450003, China. 5. Radiological Department of Henan Provincial People's Hospital, No. 7 Weiwu Road, Zhengzhou, Henan, 450003, China. cjr.shidapeng@vip.163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic value of monoexponential, biexponential and stretched exponential models for identifying lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty female patients with cervical cancer underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. The diffusion parameters of the LNs were calculated by fitting the values to monoexponential, biexponential and stretched exponential models and were compared between the metastatic and non-metastatic LN groups. RESULTS: A total of 157 LNs with high signal intensity on multi-b-value DWI were detected, 41 of which were pathologically shown to be metastatic. Metastatic LNs presented with higher pure water diffusion (D) values, lower perfusion fraction (f) values, higher diffusion heterogeneity (α) values, higher short diameter (Size-S), long diameter (Size-L) and short long diameter ratio (S/L Ratio) than non-metastatic LNs (P<0.05). The Size-S of LNs exhibited the highest diagnostic value, with an area under the curve of 0.844. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the size parameters, the diffusion parameters derived from multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging cannot reliably discriminate metastatic from non-metastatic LNs in daily clinical routine due to limited sensitivity and specificity. KEY POINTS: • Biexponential and stretched exponential diffusion models can help to characterise LN status. • Metastatic LNs present with higher D and α values, lower f values. • Diffusion parameters were less reliable in discriminating LNs than size parameters.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic value of monoexponential, biexponential and stretched exponential models for identifying lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with cervical cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty female patients with cervical cancer underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. The diffusion parameters of the LNs were calculated by fitting the values to monoexponential, biexponential and stretched exponential models and were compared between the metastatic and non-metastatic LN groups. RESULTS: A total of 157 LNs with high signal intensity on multi-b-value DWI were detected, 41 of which were pathologically shown to be metastatic. Metastatic LNs presented with higher pure water diffusion (D) values, lower perfusion fraction (f) values, higher diffusion heterogeneity (α) values, higher short diameter (Size-S), long diameter (Size-L) and short long diameter ratio (S/L Ratio) than non-metastatic LNs (P<0.05). The Size-S of LNs exhibited the highest diagnostic value, with an area under the curve of 0.844. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the size parameters, the diffusion parameters derived from multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging cannot reliably discriminate metastatic from non-metastatic LNs in daily clinical routine due to limited sensitivity and specificity. KEY POINTS: • Biexponential and stretched exponential diffusion models can help to characterise LN status. • Metastatic LNs present with higher D and α values, lower f values. • Diffusion parameters were less reliable in discriminating LNs than size parameters.
Authors: Kevin M Bennett; Kathleen M Schmainda; Raoqiong Tong Bennett; Daniel B Rowe; Hanbing Lu; James S Hyde Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Christina M Wendl; Steffen Müller; Johannes Eiglsperger; Claudia Fellner; Ernst M Jung; Johannes K Meier Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2015-10-09 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Luc A Heijnen; Doenja M J Lambregts; Dipanjali Mondal; Milou H Martens; Robert G Riedl; Geerard L Beets; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-07-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: W M Klerkx; W B Veldhuis; A M Spijkerboer; M A van den Bosch; W P Mali; A P Heintz; S Bipat; D M Sie-Go; J van der Velden; H W Schreuder; J Stoker; P H Peeters Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Michele Follen; Charles F Levenback; Revathy B Iyer; Perry W Grigsby; Erik A Boss; Ebrahim S Delpassand; Bruno D Fornage; Elliot K Fishman Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-11-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Harriet C Thoeny; Johannes M Froehlich; Maria Triantafyllou; Juerg Huesler; Lauren J Bains; Peter Vermathen; Achim Fleischmann; Urs E Studer Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jessica M Winfield; Matthew R Orton; David J Collins; Thomas E J Ind; Ayoma Attygalle; Steve Hazell; Veronica A Morgan; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-24 Impact factor: 5.315