Literature DB >> 33847811

Accuracy of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant pancreatic lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

LuShun Zhang1, LongLin Yin2, MeiLin Zhu3,4, ChuanDe Zhang3,4, JingXin Yan5, Ju Sun6, XinYi Zhao6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A variety of imaging techniques can be used to evaluate diffusion characteristics to differentiate malignant and benign pancreatic lesions. The diagnostic performance of diffusion parameters has not been systematic assessed.
PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for pancreatic lesions.
METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies from inception to March 30, 2020, which involves the quantitative diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in the pancreas. Studies were reviewed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of articles was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUATAS-2). A bivariate random-effects model was used to evaluate pooled sensitivities and specificities. Univariable meta-regression analysis was used to test the effects of factors that contributed to the heterogeneity.
RESULTS: A total of 31 studies involving 1558 patients were ultimately eligible for data extraction. The lowest heterogeneity was found in specificity of perfusion fraction (f) with the I2 value was 17.97% and Cochran p value was 0.28. However, high heterogeneities were found for the other parameters (all I2 > 50%). There was no publication bias found in funnel plot (p = 0.30) for the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameter. The pooled sensitivities for ADC, f, pure diffusion coefficient (D), and pseudo diffusivity coefficient (D*) were 83%, 81%, 76%, and 84%, respectively. The pooled specificities for ADC, f, D, and D* were 87%, 83%, 69%, and 81% respectively. The areas under the curves for ADC, f, D, and D* were 0.92, 0.87, 0.79, and 0.87 respectively.
CONCLUSION: Quantitative DWI and IVIM have a good diagnostic performance for differentiating malignant and benign pancreatic lesions. KEY POINTS: • IVIM has high sensitivity and specificity (84% and 83%, respectively) for differential diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, which is comparable to that of the ADC (83% and 87%, respectively). • The ADC has an excellent diagnostic performance for differentiating malignant from benign IPMNs (sensitivity, 0.83; specificity, 0.92); the f has the best diagnostic performance for differentiating pancreatic carcinoma from PNET (sensitivity, 0.85; specificity, 0.85). • For the ADC, using a maximal b value < 800 s/mm2 has a higher diagnostic accuracy than ≥ 800 s/mm2; performing in a high field strength (3.0 T) system has a higher diagnostic accuracy than a low field strength (1.5 T) for pancreatic lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Differential diagnosis; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Meta-analysis; Pancreatic diseases

Year:  2021        PMID: 33847811     DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-07880-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur Radiol        ISSN: 0938-7994            Impact factor:   5.315


  55 in total

Review 1.  Liver diffusion-weighted MR imaging: the tower of Babel?

Authors:  Boris Guiu; Jean-Pierre Cercueil
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2010-11-26       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Cancer statistics, 2019.

Authors:  Rebecca L Siegel; Kimberly D Miller; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2019-01-08       Impact factor: 508.702

3.  CT perfusion and diffusion-weighted MR imaging of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: can we predict tumor grade using functional parameters?

Authors:  Jelena Djokić Kovač; Aleksandra Đurić-Stefanović; Vladimir Dugalić; Ljubica Lazić; Dejana Stanisavljević; Danijel Galun; Dragan Mašulović
Journal:  Acta Radiol       Date:  2018-11-14       Impact factor: 1.990

Review 4.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of solid and cystic lesions of the pancreas.

Authors:  Yi Wang; Frank H Miller; Zongming E Chen; Laura Merrick; Koenraad J Mortele; Frederick L Hoff; Nancy A Hammond; Vahid Yaghmai; Yaghmai Vahid; Paul Nikolaidis
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2011 May-Jun       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 5.  Pancreatic neoplasm in 2011: an update.

Authors:  Muhammad Wasif Saif
Journal:  JOP       Date:  2011-07-08

6.  Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging.

Authors:  D Le Bihan; E Breton; D Lallemand; M L Aubin; J Vignaud; M Laval-Jeantet
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1988-08       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 7.  Diffusion Quantification in Body Imaging.

Authors:  Myles T Taffel; Evan J Johnson; Hersh Chandarana
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2017-12

Review 8.  Clinical Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion MR Imaging: Past, Present, and Future.

Authors:  Mami Iima; Denis Le Bihan
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the pancreas: current status and recommendations.

Authors:  Matthias Barral; Bachir Taouli; Boris Guiu; Doh-Mu Koh; Alain Luciani; Riccardo Manfredi; Valérie Vilgrain; Christine Hoeffel; Masayuki Kanematsu; Philippe Soyer
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Perfusion CT can predict tumoral grading of pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Authors:  M D'Onofrio; A Gallotti; W Mantovani; S Crosara; E Manfrin; M Falconi; A Ventriglia; G A Zamboni; R Manfredi; R Pozzi Mucelli
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2012-11-03       Impact factor: 3.528

View more
  4 in total

1.  Evaluation of HIF-1α Expression in a Rat Glioma Model Using Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and R2* Mapping.

Authors:  Dongdong Wang; Yiping Lu; Xuanxuan Li; Nan Mei; Pu-Yeh Wu; Daoying Geng; Hao Wu; Bo Yin
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 5.738

Review 2.  Imaging Modalities for Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: Current State and Future Research Opportunities.

Authors:  Katherina P Farr; Daniel Moses; Koroush S Haghighi; Phoebe A Phillips; Claudia M Hillenbrand; Boon H Chua
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-21       Impact factor: 6.575

3.  The Diagnostic Performance of Maximum Uptake Value and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Ovarian or Adnexal Masses: A Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Xianwen Hu; Zhigang Liang; Chuanqin Zhang; Guanlian Wang; Jiong Cai; Pan Wang
Journal:  Front Oncol       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 6.244

4.  Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Clinical Potential and Applications.

Authors:  Anna Caroli
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 4.964

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.