Literature DB >> 32071025

Quantitative assessment of diffusion kurtosis imaging depicting deep myometrial invasion: a comparative analysis with diffusion-weighted imaging.

Jia-Cheng Song1, Shan-Shan Lu1, Jing Zhang1, Xi-Sheng Liu, Cheng-Yan Luo2, Ting Chen1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to distinguish between deep myometrial invasion and superficial myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma (EC).
METHODS: A total of 118 pathologically confirmed EC patients with preoperative DWI were included. The data were postprocessed with a DKI (b value of 0, 700, 1400, and 2000 s/mm2) model for quantitation of apparent diffusion values (D) and apparent kurtosis coefficient values (K) for non-Gaussian distribution. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was postprocessed with a conventional DWI model (b values of 0 and 800 s/mm2). A whole-tumor analysis approach was used. Comparisons of the histogram parameters of D, K, and ADC were carried out for the deep myometrial invasion and superficial myometrial invasion subgroups. Diagnostic performance of the imaging parameters was assessed.
RESULTS: The Dmean, D10th, and D90th in deep myometrial invasion group were significantly lower than those in superficial invasion group (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.023, respectively), as well as the ADCmean, ADC10th, and ADC90th (P = 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.042, respectively). The Kmean and K90th were significantly higher in deep invasion group than those in superficial myometrial invasion group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.026, respectively). The D10th, Kmean, and ADC10th had a relatively higher area under the curve (AUC) (0.72, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively) than other parameters for distinguishing deep myometrial invasion of EC. D10th showed a relatively higher AUC than ADC10th for the differentiation of lesions with deep myometrial invasion from those with superficial myometrial invasion (0.72 vs. 0.71), but the variation was not statistically significant (P = 0.35).
CONCLUSION: Distribution of DKI and conventional DWI parameters characterized by histogram analysis may represent an indicator for deep myometrial invasion in EC. Both DKI and DWI models showed relatively equivalent effectiveness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32071025      PMCID: PMC7051262          DOI: 10.5152/dir.2019.18366

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Diagn Interv Radiol        ISSN: 1305-3825            Impact factor:   2.630


  32 in total

1.  The significance of the amount of myometrial invasion in patients with Stage IB endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Kaled M Alektiar; Andrea McKee; Oscar Lin; Ennapadam Venkatraman; Michael J Zelefsky; Boris R Mychalczak; Brady McKee; William J Hoskins; Richard R Barakat
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2002-07-15       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Measurement of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) of the primary tumor and CA125 are predictive of disease recurrence for patients with endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Keiichiro Nakamura; Noriaki Imafuku; Takeshi Nishida; Ieyasu Niwa; Ikuo Joja; Atsushi Hongo; Junichi Kodama; Yuji Hiramatsu
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 5.482

Review 3.  Update on prognostic markers for endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Pratibha S Binder; David G Mutch
Journal:  Womens Health (Lond)       Date:  2014-05

4.  Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions.

Authors:  Luísa Nogueira; Sofia Brandão; Eduarda Matos; Rita Gouveia Nunes; Joana Loureiro; Isabel Ramos; Hugo Alexandre Ferreira
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03-22       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters of endometrioid carcinoma.

Authors:  Chie Inoue; Shinya Fujii; Sachi Kaneda; Takeru Fukunaga; Toshio Kaminou; Junzo Kigawa; Tasuku Harada; Toshihide Ogawa
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Evaluation of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging Versus Standard Diffusion Imaging for Detection and Grading of Peripheral Zone Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Matthias C Roethke; Tristan A Kuder; Timur H Kuru; Michael Fenchel; Boris A Hadaschik; Frederik B Laun; Heinz-Peter Schlemmer; Bram Stieltjes
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 6.016

7.  Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Eric E Sigmund; Glyn Johnson; James S Babb; Thais C Mussi; Jonathan Melamed; Samir S Taneja; Vivian S Lee; Jens H Jensen
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Markers for individualised therapy in endometrial carcinoma.

Authors:  Helga B Salvesen; Ingfrid S Haldorsen; Jone Trovik
Journal:  Lancet Oncol       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 41.316

9.  Tumor volume successively reflects the state of disease progression in endometrial cancer.

Authors:  Yukiharu Todo; Hidemichi Watari; Kazuhira Okamoto; Hitoshi Hareyama; Shinichiro Minobe; Hidenori Kato; Noriaki Sakuragi
Journal:  Gynecol Oncol       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 5.482

10.  Preoperative tumor size at MRI predicts deep myometrial invasion, lymph node metastases, and patient outcome in endometrial carcinomas.

Authors:  Sigmund Ytre-Hauge; Jenny A Husby; Inger J Magnussen; Henrica M J Werner; Øyvind O Salvesen; Line Bjørge; Jone Trovik; Ingunn M Stefansson; Helga B Salvesen; Ingfrid S Haldorsen
Journal:  Int J Gynecol Cancer       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 3.437

View more
  1 in total

1.  Evaluation of Amide Proton Transfer-Weighted Imaging for Risk Factors in Stage I Endometrial Cancer: A Comparison With Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging.

Authors:  Xingxing Jin; Ruifang Yan; Zhong Li; Gaiyun Zhang; Wenling Liu; Hongxia Wang; Meng Zhang; Jinxia Guo; Kaiyu Wang; Dongming Han
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 5.738

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.