Grazia Pozzi1, Domenico Albano2, Carmelo Messina3, Salvatore Alessio Angileri4, Asma'a Al-Mnayyis5, Fabio Galbusera6, Alessandro Luzzati7, Giuseppe Perrucchini7, Gennaro Scotto7, Antonina Parafioriti8, Alberto Zerbi1, Luca Maria Sconfienza1,9. 1. Unità Operativa di Radiologia Diagnostica ed Interventistica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy. 2. Sezione di scienze Radiologiche, Di.Bi.Med., Università degli Studi di Palermo, Palermo, Italy. 3. Scuola di Specializzazione in Radiodiagnostica, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy. 4. Unità Operativa di Radiologia Diagnostica e Interventistica, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, Milano, Italy. 5. Department of Radiology, College of Medicine, Yarmouk University, Irbid, Jordan. 6. Laboratorio di Meccanica delle Strutture Biologiche, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy. 7. Centro di Chirurgia Ortopedica Oncologica e Ricostruttiva del Rachide, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milano, Italy. 8. Anatomia Patologica, Azienda Sociosanitaria Territoriale PINI-CTO, Milano, Italy. 9. Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumors, although some features of benign and malignant cancers may overlap, making the differential diagnosis challenging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 116 patients (62 males, 54 females; mean age 59.5 ± 14.1) with biopsy-proven spinal bone tumors were studied. Field strength/sequences: 1.5T MR system; T1 -weighted turbo spin-echo (repetition time / echo time [TR/TE], 500/13 msec; number of excitations [NEX], 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), T2 -weighted turbo spin-echo (TR/TE, 4100/102 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), short tau inversion recovery (TR/TE, 4800/89 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm, IT, 140 msec), axial spin-echo echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (TR/TE 5200/72 msec; slice thickness 5 mm; field of view, 300; interslice gap, 1.5 mm; NEX, 6; echo-planar imaging factor, 96; no parallel imaging) with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm², and 3D fat-suppressed T1 -weighted gradient-recalled-echo (TR/TE, 500/13 msec; slice thickness, 4 mm) after administration of 0.2 ml/kg body weight gadolinum-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid. Two readers manually drew regions of interest on the solid portion of the lesion (hyperintense on T2 -weighted images, hypointense on T1 -weighted images, and enhanced after gadolinium administration on fat-suppressed T1 -weighted images) to calculate mADC. Histology was used as the reference standard. Tumors were classified into malignant primary tumors (MPT), bone metastases (BM), or benign primary tumors (BPT). Statistical tests: Nonnormality of distribution was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction were used. Sensitivity and specificity of the mADC values for BM, MPT, and BPT were calculated. Approximate receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The mADC values of MPT (n = 35), BM (n = 65), and BPT (n = 16) were 1.00 ± 0.32 (0.59-2.10) × 10-3 mm2 /s, 1.02 ± 0.25 (0.73-1.96) × 10-3 mm2 /s, 1.31 ± 0.36 (0.83-2.14) × 10-3 mm2 /s, respectively. The mADC was significantly different between BPT and all malignant lesions (BM+MPT) (P < 0.001), BM and BPT (P = 0.008), and MPT and BPT (P = 0.008). No difference was found between BM and MPT (P = 0.999). An mADC threshold of 0.952 × 10-3 mm2 /s yielded 81.3% sensitivity, 55.0% specificity. Accuracy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.9%-88.1%). Interobserver reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC = 0.916; 95% CI = 0.879-0.942). CONCLUSION: DWI with mADC quantification is a reproducible tool to differentiate benign from malignant solid tumors with 76% accuracy. The mADC values of BPT were statistically higher than that of malignant tumors. However, the large overlap between cases may make mADC not helpful in a specific patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1034-1042.
PURPOSE: To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumors, although some features of benign and malignant cancers may overlap, making the differential diagnosis challenging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In all, 116 patients (62 males, 54 females; mean age 59.5 ± 14.1) with biopsy-proven spinal bone tumors were studied. Field strength/sequences: 1.5T MR system; T1 -weighted turbo spin-echo (repetition time / echo time [TR/TE], 500/13 msec; number of excitations [NEX], 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), T2 -weighted turbo spin-echo (TR/TE, 4100/102 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), short tau inversion recovery (TR/TE, 4800/89 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm, IT, 140 msec), axial spin-echo echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) (TR/TE 5200/72 msec; slice thickness 5 mm; field of view, 300; interslice gap, 1.5 mm; NEX, 6; echo-planar imaging factor, 96; no parallel imaging) with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm², and 3D fat-suppressed T1 -weighted gradient-recalled-echo (TR/TE, 500/13 msec; slice thickness, 4 mm) after administration of 0.2 ml/kg body weight gadolinum-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid. Two readers manually drew regions of interest on the solid portion of the lesion (hyperintense on T2 -weighted images, hypointense on T1 -weighted images, and enhanced after gadolinium administration on fat-suppressed T1 -weighted images) to calculate mADC. Histology was used as the reference standard. Tumors were classified into malignant primary tumors (MPT), bone metastases (BM), or benign primary tumors (BPT). Statistical tests: Nonnormality of distribution was tested with the Shapiro-Wilk test. The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction were used. Sensitivity and specificity of the mADC values for BM, MPT, and BPT were calculated. Approximate receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). RESULTS: The mADC values of MPT (n = 35), BM (n = 65), and BPT (n = 16) were 1.00 ± 0.32 (0.59-2.10) × 10-3 mm2 /s, 1.02 ± 0.25 (0.73-1.96) × 10-3 mm2 /s, 1.31 ± 0.36 (0.83-2.14) × 10-3 mm2 /s, respectively. The mADC was significantly different between BPT and all malignant lesions (BM+MPT) (P < 0.001), BM and BPT (P = 0.008), and MPT and BPT (P = 0.008). No difference was found between BM and MPT (P = 0.999). An mADC threshold of 0.952 × 10-3 mm2 /s yielded 81.3% sensitivity, 55.0% specificity. Accuracy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.9%-88.1%). Interobserver reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC = 0.916; 95% CI = 0.879-0.942). CONCLUSION: DWI with mADC quantification is a reproducible tool to differentiate benign from malignant solid tumors with 76% accuracy. The mADC values of BPT were statistically higher than that of malignant tumors. However, the large overlap between cases may make mADC not helpful in a specific patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1034-1042.
Authors: Federico Bruno; Francesco Arrigoni; Silvia Mariani; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Carlo Masciocchi; Antonio Barile Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-04-04 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Alberto Bellelli; Enzo Silvestri; Antonio Barile; Domenico Albano; Alberto Aliprandi; Roberto Caudana; Vito Chianca; Francesco Di Pietto; Carlo Faletti; Eugenio Genovese; Andrea Giovagnoni; Carlo Masciocchi; Carmelo Messina; Luca Maria Sconfienza; Vincenzo Spina; Marcello Zappia Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Francesco Arrigoni; Federico Bruno; Luigi Zugaro; Alessandra Splendiani; Ernesto Di Cesare; Antonio Barile; Carlo Masciocchi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2018-04-23 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: D Giambelluca; D Albano; E Giambelluca; A Bruno; F Panzuto; A Agrusa; G Di Buono; F Cannizzaro; Cesare Gagliardo; M Midiri; R Lagalla; G Salvaggio Journal: G Chir Date: 2017 Sep-Oct
Authors: Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Peter C Gerszten; Sten Myrehaug; Nina A Mayr; William Tc Yuh; Pejman Jabehdar Maralani; Arjun Sahgal; Simon S Lo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 3.039