Ju Zhang1, Xiaowei Chen2, Dong Chen3, Zhenxiong Wang4, Shihui Li5, Wenzhen Zhu6. 1. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Electronic address: zjws520@qq.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Electronic address: 57082284@qq.com. 3. Department of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Electronic address: jelly2266@163.com. 4. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Electronic address: 453839056@qq.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Electronic address: 964684261@qq.com. 6. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. Electronic address: zhuwenzhen8612@qq.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the main parameters derived from monoexponential, biexponential and stretched-exponential diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with respect to diagnostic performance for tumor grading and proliferation assessment in diffuse astrocytic tumors (DATs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight pathologically confirmed DAT patients who underwent DWI and DKI on a 3-T scanner were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Measurements including the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC), heterogeneity index (α), mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), and mean kurtosis (MK) were compared between tumor grades (Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ) by using a Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the diagnostic efficacy of these parameters. Spearman's rho with the Ki-67 labeling index (LI) was calculated for each parameter. RESULTS: MK values differed significantly between all DAT subtypes and increased with grade. The ADC, D, f, DDC, α and MD values were significantly higher in grade Ⅱ tumors than in grade Ⅲ/Ⅳ tumors. D* values were significantly lower in grade Ⅱ tumors than in grade Ⅳ tumors (all P < 0.05). In discriminating between grade Ⅱ and Ⅲ tumors, α, MK, MD, D and f had significantly greater area under the ROC curve (AUC) values than D* and FA (0.927, 0.901, 0.896, 0.895, and 0.889, respectively vs 0.659 and 0.598, respectively, P < 0.05). In discriminating between grade Ⅲ and Ⅳ tumors, only MK demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC = 0.711). MK and D showed a strong correlation with the Ki-67 LI (ρ = 0.791 and -0.789, respectively, P < 0.001). D*, f, MD, ADC, DDC and α showed a moderate correlation (|ρ| ranged from 0.415 to 0.698, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: MK and D have considerable potential to predict the degree of proliferation of DATs. MK could effectively characterize microstructural changes throughout the malignant transformation of DATs and provided useful complementary information for grading.
PURPOSE: To compare the main parameters derived from monoexponential, biexponential and stretched-exponential diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) with respect to diagnostic performance for tumor grading and proliferation assessment in diffuse astrocytic tumors (DATs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-eight pathologically confirmed DAT patients who underwent DWI and DKI on a 3-T scanner were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Measurements including the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC), heterogeneity index (α), mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), and mean kurtosis (MK) were compared between tumor grades (Ⅱ, Ⅲ, and Ⅳ) by using a Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the diagnostic efficacy of these parameters. Spearman's rho with the Ki-67 labeling index (LI) was calculated for each parameter. RESULTS: MK values differed significantly between all DAT subtypes and increased with grade. The ADC, D, f, DDC, α and MD values were significantly higher in grade Ⅱ tumors than in grade Ⅲ/Ⅳ tumors. D* values were significantly lower in grade Ⅱ tumors than in grade Ⅳ tumors (all P < 0.05). In discriminating between grade Ⅱ and Ⅲ tumors, α, MK, MD, D and f had significantly greater area under the ROC curve (AUC) values than D* and FA (0.927, 0.901, 0.896, 0.895, and 0.889, respectively vs 0.659 and 0.598, respectively, P < 0.05). In discriminating between grade Ⅲ and Ⅳ tumors, only MK demonstrated acceptable discrimination (AUC = 0.711). MK and D showed a strong correlation with the Ki-67 LI (ρ = 0.791 and -0.789, respectively, P < 0.001). D*, f, MD, ADC, DDC and α showed a moderate correlation (|ρ| ranged from 0.415 to 0.698, P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: MK and D have considerable potential to predict the degree of proliferation of DATs. MK could effectively characterize microstructural changes throughout the malignant transformation of DATs and provided useful complementary information for grading.
Authors: E L Pogosbekian; I N Pronin; N E Zakharova; A I Batalov; A M Turkin; T A Konakova; I I Maximov Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 2.804