OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of related parameters in monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential models of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in differentiating metastases and myeloma in the spine. METHODS: 53 metastases and 16 myeloma patients underwent MRI with 10 b-values (0-1500 s/mm2). Parameters of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), the distribution diffusion coefficient (DDC), and intravoxel water diffusion heterogeneity (α) from DWI were calculated. The independent sample t test and the Mann-Whiney U test were used to compare the statistical difference of the parameter values between the two. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the diagnostic efficacy. Then substituted each parameter into the decision tree model and logistic regression model, identified meaningful parameters, and evaluated their joint diagnostic performance. RESULTS: The ADC, D, and α values of metastases were higher than those of myeloma, whereas the D* value was lower than that of myeloma, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05); the area under the ROC curve for the above parameters was 0.661, 0.710, 0.781, and 0.743, respectively. There was no significant difference in the f and DDC values (p > 0.05). D and α were found to conform to the decision tree model, and the accuracy of model diagnosis was 84.1%. ADC and α were found to conform to the logistic regression model, and the accuracy was 87.0%. CONCLUSION: The 3 models of DWI have certain values indifferentiating metastases and myeloma in spine, and the diagnostic performance of ADC, D, α and D*was better. Combining ADC with α may markedly aid in the differential diagnosis of the two. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential models can offer additional information in the differential diagnosis of metastases and myeloma in the spine. Decision tree model and logistic regression model are effective methods to help further distinguish the two.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the value of related parameters in monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential models of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in differentiating metastases and myeloma in the spine. METHODS: 53 metastases and 16 myeloma patients underwent MRI with 10 b-values (0-1500 s/mm2). Parameters of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), the distribution diffusion coefficient (DDC), and intravoxel water diffusion heterogeneity (α) from DWI were calculated. The independent sample t test and the Mann-Whiney U test were used to compare the statistical difference of the parameter values between the two. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify the diagnostic efficacy. Then substituted each parameter into the decision tree model and logistic regression model, identified meaningful parameters, and evaluated their joint diagnostic performance. RESULTS: The ADC, D, and α values of metastases were higher than those of myeloma, whereas the D* value was lower than that of myeloma, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05); the area under the ROC curve for the above parameters was 0.661, 0.710, 0.781, and 0.743, respectively. There was no significant difference in the f and DDC values (p > 0.05). D and α were found to conform to the decision tree model, and the accuracy of model diagnosis was 84.1%. ADC and α were found to conform to the logistic regression model, and the accuracy was 87.0%. CONCLUSION: The 3 models of DWI have certain values indifferentiating metastases and myeloma in spine, and the diagnostic performance of ADC, D, α and D*was better. Combining ADC with α may markedly aid in the differential diagnosis of the two. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched-exponential models can offer additional information in the differential diagnosis of metastases and myeloma in the spine. Decision tree model and logistic regression model are effective methods to help further distinguish the two.
Authors: Kevin M Bennett; Kathleen M Schmainda; Raoqiong Tong Bennett; Daniel B Rowe; Hanbing Lu; James S Hyde Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jessica M Winfield; Nandita M deSouza; Andrew N Priest; Jennifer C Wakefield; Charlotte Hodgkin; Susan Freeman; Matthew R Orton; David J Collins Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Youxin Guan; Kyung K Peck; John Lyo; Jamie Tisnado; Eric Lis; Julio Arevalo-Perez; Yoshiya Yamada; Meera R Hameed; Sasan Karimi; Andrei Holodny Journal: Radiology Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 11.105