| Literature DB >> 33912449 |
Nian Liu1, Xiongxiong Yang2, Lixing Lei1, Ke Pan1, Qianqian Liu1, Xiaohua Huang1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic efficiency of the mono-exponential model and bi-exponential model deriving from intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) in differentiating the pathological grade of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC).Entities:
Keywords: bi-exponential model; diffusion-weighted imaging; esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; intravoxel incoherent motion; mono-exponential model; pathological grade
Year: 2021 PMID: 33912449 PMCID: PMC8071935 DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.625891
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Oncol ISSN: 2234-943X Impact factor: 6.244
The differences between the mono-exponential IVIM model and bi-exponential IVIM model distinguishing the pathological grade of ESCC ( ± SD).
| Model parameters | WD (n=20) | MD (n=20) | PD (n=14) | Post-hoc by LSD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | ANOVA | PD | PD | MD | |
| p value | p value | p value | p value | ||||
|
| |||||||
| Dmomo (10-3mm2/s) | 1.48 ± 0.51 | 1.22 ± 0.39 | 1.05 ± 0.44 | 0.031* | 0.010* | 0.277 | 0.090 |
| D*mono (10-2mm2/s) | 2.65 ± 1.96 | 1.88 ± 1.26 | 1.25 ± 0.56 | 0.147 | NA | NA | NA |
| fmono | 0.16 ± 0.05 | 0.23 ± 0.08 | 0.32 ± 0.07 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | <0.001*** |
|
| |||||||
| Dbi (10-3mm2/s) | 1.33 ± 0.54 | 1.17 ± 0.51 | 0.91 ± 0.45 | 0.065 | NA | NA | NA |
| D*bi (10-2mm2/s) | 2.82 ± 1.63 | 2.21 ± 1.41 | 1.67 ± 0.78 | 0.059 | NA | NA | NA |
| fbi | 0.18 ± 0.07 | 0.26 ± 0.10 | 0.35 ± 0.08 | <0.001*** | <0.001*** | 0.005** | 0.003** |
*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; IVIM, intravoxel incoherent motion; D*, pseudo-diffusion coefficient; D, true diffusion coefficient; f, pseudo diffusion fraction; mono, mono-exponential fitting model; bi, bi-exponential fitting model; LSD, least significant difference; WD,well-differentiated; MD, moderately-differentiated; PD, poorly-differentiated.
Figure 1Dmono and fmono values derived from mono-exponential IVIM-DWI of ESCC with different pathologically differentiated grades. (A–C) PD ESCC in a 48-year-old man. The regions of interest are selected by (A) T2-weighted image and drawn on (B) Dmono map (0.958×10-3 mm2/s) and (C) fmono map (0.381×100%). (D–F) MD ESCC in a 64-year-old man. The regions of interest are selected by (D) T2-weighted image and drawn on (E) Dmono map (1.450×10-3 mm2/s) and (F) fmono map (0.290×100%). (G–I) WD ESCC in a 61-year-old man. The regions of interest are selected by (G) T2-weighted image and drawn on (H) Dmono map (1.54×10-3 mm2/s) and (I) fmono map (0.120×100%). IVIM, intravoxel incoherent motion; DWI, diffusion-weighted imaging; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PD, poorly-differentiated; MD, moderately-differentiated; WD, well-differentiated; D, true diffusion coefficient; f, pseudo diffusion fraction.
Figure 2(A) ROC curves show the utility of Dmono, fmono, and fbi to distinguish PD ESCC from WD ESCC, and (B) fmono and fbi to distinguish PD ESCC from MD ESCC, and (C) WD ESCC from MD ESCC. ROC, receiver operating characteristic; D, pure diffusion coefficient; f, perfusion fraction; ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; PD, poorly-differentiated; MD, moderately-differentiated; WD, well-differentiated; mono, mono-exponential model; bi, bi-exponential model.
The diagnostic efficacy between the two models for the pathological grade of ESCC.
| Differentiations | Variable | Cut-off value | AUC | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PD | |||||
| Dmono | 1.26*10−3 mm2/s | 0.764 | 0.929 | 0.600 | |
| fmono | 0.214 | 0.961 | 0.929 | 0.900 | |
| fbi | 0.289 | 0.932 | 0.857 | 1.000 | |
| PD | |||||
| fmono | 0.301 | 0.839 | 0.786 | 0.800 | |
| fbi | 0.312 | 0.757 | 0.857 | 0.700 | |
| WD | |||||
| fmono | 0.193 | 0.746 | 0.650 | 0.850 | |
| fbi | 0.208 | 0.740 | 0.800 | 0.600 |
ESCC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; D, true diffusion coefficient; f, pseudo diffusion fraction; mono, mono-exponential fitting model; bi, bi-exponential fitting model; PD, poorly-differentiated; MD, moderately-differentiated; WD, well-differentiated.