| Literature DB >> 31204855 |
Gang Wu1, Ruyi Xie1, Xuanlin Liu1, Bowen Hou1, Yitong Li1, Xiaoming Li1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the feasibility of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion MR and diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in discriminating atypical bone metastasis from benign bone lesion in patients with tumors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31204855 PMCID: PMC6724638 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190119
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Br J Radiol ISSN: 0007-1285 Impact factor: 3.039
IVIM and DKI parameters were compared between benign bone lesion and bone metastasis using a Mann–Whitney test
| Benign lesion ( | Metastasis ( | ||
| ADC (×10-3 mm2/s) | 1.95 ± 0.39 | 1.23 ± 0.27 | <0.001 |
| D (×10-3 mm2/s) | 1.78 ± 0.42 | 1.12 ± 0.22 | 0.005 |
| D* (×10-3 mm2/s) | 6.86 ± 3.53 | 9.72 ± 4.89 | 0.168 |
| f (%) | 3.43 ± 2.99 | 10.0 ± 3.98 | <0.001 |
| MK | 0.36 ± 0.22 | 0.76 ± 0.45 | 0.03 |
| MD (×10-3 mm2/s) | 1.91 ± 0.53 | 1.26 ± 0.46 | 0.004 |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; D*, perfusion-related pseudo diffusion; D, true diffusion; DKI, diffusion kurtosisimaging; IVIM, intravoxel incoherentmotion; MD, mean diffusion; MK, mean kurtosis; f, perfusion fraction.
AUC and 95% confidence interval for IVIM and DKI parameters in discriminating bone metastasis from benign bone lesion
| AUC | 95% CI | |
| ADC | 0.935 | 0.774–0.993 |
| D | 0.939 | 0.779–0.994 |
| f | 0.891 | 0.716–0.977 |
| D* | 0.701 | 0.499–0.858 |
| MK | 0.84 | 0.653–0.950 |
| MD | 0.844 | 0.657–0.952 |
ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient; AUC, area under curve; CI, confidence interval; D*, perfusion-related pseudo-diffusion; D, true diffusion; DKI, diffusion kurtosis imaging; IVIM, intravoxel incoherentmotion; MD, mean diffusion; MK, mean kurtosis; f, perfusion fraction.
Figure 1.Female, 45 years, breast cancer. The X-ray showed abnormal structure of bone trabecula at lateral tibial plateau (a, arrows). Osteoporosis and periosteal hyperplasia could be seen on transverse CT image (b, arrows). Coronal fat-suppressed T2 image displayed a lesion of hyperintensity at proximal tibia (c, arrows). Fast spin echo T1 (d), T2 (e), and contrast-enhanced T1 (f) could display the border of the lesion (d, e, f, arrows) better than X-ray or CT (a, b, arrows). It was difficult to determine whether this lesion was metastasis with conventional images only. The lesion was very high signal on b = 0 image from diffusion kurtosis imaging, and brighter than background on b = 1000 from intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MR. It was isointensity on b = 2100 image where the border of lesion could not be identified. Thus diffusion kurtosis imaging did not support the diagnosis of metastasis. This lesion was confirmed not a metastasis from breast cancer by pathology.
Figure 2.A bone lesion of hyperintensity was identified at tibia of a patient with gastric cancer. It was very high signal when b-value was less than 200. The intensity of the lesion decreased with the increase of b-value. On b=1500 map, this lesion was isointensity. It was an inflammatory granuloma confirmed by pathology.