Weiliang Qian1, Qian Chen1, Zhongshuai Zhang2, Hong Wang1, Jibin Zhang1, Jianming Xu1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Suzhou Hospital of Nanjing Medical University , Suzhou , People's Republic of China. 2. 2 Diagnosis Imaging, Siemens Healthcare Ltd , Shanghai , Republic of China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To compare the performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) based on readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (RESOLVE) and single-shot EPI (SS-EPI) sequence in evaluating cervical cancer staging. METHODS: : 61 patients with cervical cancer underwent DWI based on SS-EPI and RESOLVE. Two blinded readers independently assessed two sets of DW images for distinction of anatomical structures, delineation of lesion, susceptibility artefact and overall image quality on a 4-point scale. Geometric distortion was evaluated by measuring lesion anteroposterior (AP) length and left-right (LR) width derived from T2W images and those obtained from the corresponding DW images. Staging of cervical cancer on SS-EPI and RESOLVE were compared with T2WI and gold-standard of pathological findings. RESULTS: : RESOLVE was significantly superior to SS-EPI for all four criteria regarding qualitative comparisons (all p < 0.05). Regarding the geometric distortion, AP length on SS-EPI was significantly different from that of T2WI (p < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences between RESOLVE and T2WI (both p > 0.05). The staging of SS-EPI was overestimated, while RESOLVE had a better consistency with pathological staging than SS-EPI in staging of cervical cancer. There was no significant difference in apparent diffusion coefficient value between SS-EPI and RESOLVE (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: : RESOLVE is superior to SS-EPI in the accuracy of cervical cancer staging because of the improvement in image quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: RESOLVE has a more accurate value comparable to SS-EPI in cervical cancer staging, with the advantage of the improvement in image quality and reduced geometric distortion.
OBJECTIVE: : To compare the performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) based on readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (RESOLVE) and single-shot EPI (SS-EPI) sequence in evaluating cervical cancer staging. METHODS: : 61 patients with cervical cancer underwent DWI based on SS-EPI and RESOLVE. Two blinded readers independently assessed two sets of DW images for distinction of anatomical structures, delineation of lesion, susceptibility artefact and overall image quality on a 4-point scale. Geometric distortion was evaluated by measuring lesion anteroposterior (AP) length and left-right (LR) width derived from T2W images and those obtained from the corresponding DW images. Staging of cervical cancer on SS-EPI and RESOLVE were compared with T2WI and gold-standard of pathological findings. RESULTS: : RESOLVE was significantly superior to SS-EPI for all four criteria regarding qualitative comparisons (all p < 0.05). Regarding the geometric distortion, AP length on SS-EPI was significantly different from that of T2WI (p < 0.05), whereas there were no significant differences between RESOLVE and T2WI (both p > 0.05). The staging of SS-EPI was overestimated, while RESOLVE had a better consistency with pathological staging than SS-EPI in staging of cervical cancer. There was no significant difference in apparent diffusion coefficient value between SS-EPI and RESOLVE (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: : RESOLVE is superior to SS-EPI in the accuracy of cervical cancer staging because of the improvement in image quality. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: RESOLVE has a more accurate value comparable to SS-EPI in cervical cancer staging, with the advantage of the improvement in image quality and reduced geometric distortion.
Authors: Corinne Balleyguier; E Sala; T Da Cunha; A Bergman; B Brkljacic; F Danza; R Forstner; B Hamm; R Kubik-Huch; C Lopez; R Manfredi; J McHugo; L Oleaga; K Togashi; K Kinkel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-11-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: O Ozsarlak; W Tjalma; E Schepens; B Corthouts; B Op de Beeck; E Van Marck; P M Parizel; A M De Schepper Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315