| Literature DB >> 30135478 |
Chun-Chao Xia1, Jin Pu1, Jin-Ge Zhang1, Wan-Lin Peng1, Lei Li1, Fei Zhao1, Kai Zhang1, Yu-Ming Li1, Ke-Ling Liu1, Wen-Jian Meng2, Xiang-Bing Deng2, Xiao-Yue Zhou3, Zhen-Lin Li4.
Abstract
To evaluate whether aggressive characteristics of rectal cancer can be predicted by the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) obtained using readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (rs-EPI) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance. We enrolled one hundred and fifteen patients. The image quality of ADC maps by rs-EPI was compared with that by traditional single-shot echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI), and ADC measurement was performed on the rs-EPI based ADC maps. Differences in ADC values of tumors grouped according to differentiation grade, clinical T stage and plasmatic carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) level were tested. The correlation between each aggressive characteristic and the corresponding ADC values was evaluated. The image quality of ADC maps obtained by rs-EPI was superior toss-EPI (P < 0.05). The ADC values of tumor were categorized based on the following differentiation grades: poor (0.89 ± 0.12 × 10-3 mm2/s), moderate (1.13 ± 0.25 × 10-3 mm2/s), and good (1.31 ± 0.19 × 10-3 mm2/s); P < 0.001. Tumors with lower differentiation grades corresponded to lower ADC values (r = 0.59, P < 0.001). However, ADC differences were not observed in different clinical T stage (P = 0.22) and plasmatic CEA level (P = 0.38). Rs-EPI sequence-based ADC values represent a potential imaging marker for the aggressive rectal cancer characteristics.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30135478 PMCID: PMC6105660 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-30488-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Image quality of ADC maps obtained by rs –EPI and ss-EPI.
| Parameters | rs-EPI | ss-EPI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Kappa | Reader 1 | Reader 2 | Kappa | |
| Geometric distortion | 4.84 ± 0.37 | 4.83 ± 0.38 | 0.83 | 4.29 ± 0.67 | 4.15 ± 0.57 | 0.80 |
| Spatial resolution | 4.79 ± 0.41 | 4.77 ± 0.42 | 0.82 | 3.84 ± 0.78 | 3.71 ± 0.62 | 0.71 |
| Lesion conspicuity | 4.76 ± 0.49 | 4.72 ± 0.49 | 0.87 | 3.56 ± 0.74 | 3.47 ± 0.76 | 0.70 |
| Comprehensive image quality | 4.79 ± 0.41 | 4.81 ± 0.40 | 0.88 | 3.72 ± 0.57 | 3.72 ± 0.59 | 0.85 |
Note: Values are presented as the mean ± SD.rs-EPI, readout-segmented echo-planar imaging. ss-EPI, single-shot echo-planar imaging. *rs-EPI vs. ss-EPI, P < 0.05.
Figure 1DW images and ADC maps obtained by rs-EPI (A,B) and ss-EPI (C,D) in the same patient with rectal cancer. Abbreviations: ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; rs-EPI, readout-segmented echo-planar imaging; ss-EPI, single-shot echo-planar imaging.
Correlations between the tumor ADC values and aggressive characteristics.
| Parameters | No. of patients (n) | Tumor ADC values (×10−3 mm2/s) | Spearman’s coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Poor | 11 (9.6%) | 0.89 ± 0.12 | 0.59 |
| Moderate | 92 (80.0%) | 1.13 ± 0.25 | |
| Good | 12 (10.4%) | 1.31 ± 0.19 | |
|
| |||
| T1 | 9 (7.8%) | 1.06 ± 0.08 | −0.08 |
| T2 | 40 (34.8%) | 1.11 ± 0.20 | |
| T3 | 53 (46.1%) | 1.03 ± 0.18 | |
| T4 | 13 (11.3%) | 1.15 ± 0.18 | |
|
| |||
| <5 ng/ml | 76 (66.1%) | 1.10 ± 0.25 | −0.07 |
| ≥5 ng/ml | 39 (33.9%) | 1.07 ± 0.19 | |
Notes: Values are presented as the mean ± SD. ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen. *P < 0.001 vs. poor differentiation grade group. **P < 0.001.
Figure 2Different differentiation grade of tumors and corresponding ADC maps obtained by rs-EPI. Abbreviations as in Fig. 1.
Figure 3ADC values among different differentiation grade (A), clinical T stage (B) and plasmatic CEA level (C). Abbreviations: CEA, carcinoembryonic antigen.
Figure 4Different clinical T stage of tumors and corresponding ADC maps obtained by rs-EPI. Abbreviations as in Fig. 1.
Figure 5Plasmatic CEA level (low/high) and corresponding ADC maps obtained by rs-EPI. Abbreviations as in Figs 1 and 3.
Figure 6Bland-Altman plots showing the consistency between reader 1 and reader 2 (n = 50). The biases for the tumor ADC values were −0.014. Abbreviations as in Fig. 1.