Xue Wang1, Jiao Song1, Shengfa Zhou1, Yi Lu1, Wenxiao Lin1, Tong San Koh2, Zujun Hou3, Zhihan Yan4. 1. Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xueyuanxi Road, Wenzhou, 325027, China. 2. Department of Oncologic Imaging, National Cancer Center, Singapore 169610 and Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore, 169547, Singapore. 3. Suzhou Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Suzhou, 25163, China. 4. Department of Radiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital and Yuying Children's Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, 109 Xueyuanxi Road, Wenzhou, 325027, China. yanzhihanwz@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare different fitting methods for determining IVIM (Intravoxel Incoherent Motion) parameters and to determine whether the use of different IVIM fitting methods would affect differentiation of cervix cancer from normal cervix tissue. METHODS: Diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging of 30 subjects was performed on a 3.0 T scanner with b-values of 0, 30, 100, 200, 400, 1000 s/mm2. IVIM parameters were estimated using the segmented (two-step) fitting method and by simultaneous fitting of a bi-exponential function. Segmented fitting was performed using two different cut-off b-values (100 and 200 s/mm2) to study possible variations due to the choice of cut-off. Friedman's test and Student's t-test were respectively used to compare IVIM parameters derived from different methods, and between cancer and normal tissues. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between IVIM parameters derived from the segmented method with b-value cutoff of 200 s/mm2 and the simultaneous fitting method (P>0.05). Tissue diffusivity (D) and perfusion fraction (f) were significantly lower in cervix cancer than normal tissue (P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: IVIM parameters derived using fitting methods with small cutoff b-values could be different, however, the segmented method with b-value cutoff of 200 s/mm2 are consistent with the simultaneous fitting method and both can be used to differentiate between cervix cancer and normal tissue.
BACKGROUND: To compare different fitting methods for determining IVIM (Intravoxel Incoherent Motion) parameters and to determine whether the use of different IVIM fitting methods would affect differentiation of cervix cancer from normal cervix tissue. METHODS: Diffusion-weighted echo-planar imaging of 30 subjects was performed on a 3.0 T scanner with b-values of 0, 30, 100, 200, 400, 1000 s/mm2. IVIM parameters were estimated using the segmented (two-step) fitting method and by simultaneous fitting of a bi-exponential function. Segmented fitting was performed using two different cut-off b-values (100 and 200 s/mm2) to study possible variations due to the choice of cut-off. Friedman's test and Student's t-test were respectively used to compare IVIM parameters derived from different methods, and between cancer and normal tissues. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between IVIM parameters derived from the segmented method with b-value cutoff of 200 s/mm2 and the simultaneous fitting method (P>0.05). Tissue diffusivity (D) and perfusion fraction (f) were significantly lower in cervix cancer than normal tissue (P< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: IVIM parameters derived using fitting methods with small cutoff b-values could be different, however, the segmented method with b-value cutoff of 200 s/mm2 are consistent with the simultaneous fitting method and both can be used to differentiate between cervix cancer and normal tissue.
Authors: Dariya Malyarenko; Craig J Galbán; Frank J Londy; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-09-28 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Y Hayashida; T Hirai; S Morishita; M Kitajima; R Murakami; Y Korogi; K Makino; H Nakamura; I Ikushima; M Yamura; M Kochi; J-i Kuratsu; Y Yamashita Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Emma M Meeus; Jan Novak; Stephanie B Withey; Niloufar Zarinabad; Hamid Dehghani; Andrew C Peet Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-22 Impact factor: 4.813