| Literature DB >> 34368913 |
Petra Mürtz1, Narine Mesropyan2, Alois M Sprinkart2, Wolfgang Block2, Julian A Luetkens2, Ulrike Attenberger2, Claus C Pieper2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the feasibility of two-colour index maps containing combined diffusion and perfusion information from simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) for liver lesion malignancy assessment.Entities:
Keywords: Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Feasibility studies; Focal nodular hyperplasias; Hemangioma; Liver neoplasms
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34368913 PMCID: PMC8349945 DOI: 10.1186/s41747-021-00233-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur Radiol Exp ISSN: 2509-9280
Group composition and demographic data of included subjects
| Liver pathologies | Total number of patients | Number of males | Age range (years) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hepatocellular carcinoma | 32 | 20 | 55–87 |
| Cholangiocellular carcinoma | 8 | 4 | 57–85 |
| Metastases from colorectal cancer | 22 | 17 | 47–87 |
| Metastases from breast cancer | 12 | 0 | 48–70 |
| Haemangioma | 23 | 12 | 34–84 |
| Focal nodular hyperplasia | 12 | 1 | 14–54 |
| Total | 109 | 54 | 14–87 |
Technical parameters of the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence
| Name | Value |
|---|---|
| Field of view (right-left × anterior-posterior)/orientation | 380 × 326 mm/transversal |
| Slice number/thickness/gap | 30/7.0 mm/0.7 mm |
| Matrix/resolution | 112 × 94/3.4 × 3.5 mm |
| Echo time | 63 ms |
| Repetition time | 1 respiratory cycle |
| Imaging time per respiration | 1,600 ms |
| Echo-planar imaging/half-Fourier/SENSE factor | 51/0.6/2 |
| Diffusion gradients | 3 orthogonal directions |
| 0, 50, and 250 s/mm2 (2); 800 s/mm2 (4) | |
| Fat suppression methods | Spectral presaturation by inversion recovery, SPIR |
| Water-fat shift/bandwidth | 9.2 pixel/23.6 Hz |
| Bandwidth in echo-planar imaging frequency direction | 1,437.9 Hz |
| Acquisition time | Around 4 min (2:42 min:s without gating) |
SENSE Parallel imaging with sensitivity encoding
Fig. 1Typical examples of two-colour index maps. Combined index maps IDf are given in comparison to index maps IADC together with ID and If, overlaid to b-800 images, for (a) FNH together with two haemangiomas (blue x), (b) HCC, (c) CCC together with bilioma (red x), and (d) metastasis from colorectal carcinoma (CRC). The FNH reveals almost everywhere voxels with perfusion fraction above cutoff (If green) so that IDf shows clear benignity despite diffusion coefficient below cutoff (ID red), IADC showed slightly less green voxels compared to IDf (79% versus 92%). The haemangiomas shows almost everywhere voxels with diffusion coefficient above cutoff (ID green), so that IDf shows clear benignity despite the low perfusion fraction (If red), the same is valid for IADC. The HCC shows area-wide diffusion coefficient below cutoff (red ID), and mainly perfusion fraction below cutoff with heterogeneous distribution (If scattered red) and thus also IDf showing clear malignancy, IADC shows less red voxels compared to IDf (41% versus 69%) showing benignity, the visual assessment was “probably” benign. The CCC appears on all maps mainly red showing clear malignancy on IDf and IADC maps. The bilioma looks identical to the haemangiomas. The CRC reveals mainly red voxels within the selected region of interest, which excluded hypointense region on b-800 image (necrosis). CCC Cholangiocellular carcinoma, CRC Metastasis from colorectal carcinoma, FNH Focal nodular hyperplasia, HCC Hepatocellular carcinoma
Fig. 2Further examples of combined two-colour index maps. Combined index maps IDf are given in comparison to index maps IADC together with ID and If, overlaid to b-800 images, for (a) FNH, (b) HCC, (c) metastasis of breast cancer, and (d) HCC. The FNH with central scar (a) and the HCC with central necrosis (b) show similar behaviour on all index maps with nearly all voxels being red on ID and about half of the voxels being red with scattered distribution on If and also on IADC and IDf. On IADC, visual assessment of FNH is “probable malignant” and of HCC “probably benign,” which is wrong in both cases. Quantitative values are both (50% and 45%, respectively) just below the threshold to malignancy (at 53%) leading to correct assignment for FNH and wrong for HCC. On IDf, visual assessment of FNH is “probable benign” and of HCC “probably malignant,” which is correct in both cases. Quantitative values (38% and 55%, respectively) were below and above threshold (50%), respectively, leading also to correct assignments. The metastasis with central necrosis (c) shows only a small margin of vital tumour, which can be easier captured by visible judgment than by ROI analysis with unclear tissue boundary. The HCC (d) shows the typical behaviour of a haemangioma (see Fig. 1a) and the assignment is false negative. However, the hypointense area of the left liver lobe adjacent to the lesion on b-800 indicates motion influences, which raise the diffusion coefficient of the liver tissue and lesion artificially as can be seen on ID, IADC, and IDf index maps. CCC Cholangiocellular carcinoma, FNH Focal nodular hyperplasia, HCC Hepatocellular carcinoma
Receiver operating characteristic analysis for construction of index maps
| Parameter | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Dir | AUC | 95% Confidence interval | Cutoff | Sen | Spec | Acc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Malignant ( | Benign ( | |||||||||
| ADC | 1,124 ± 180 | 1,692 ± 313 | < 0.001 | > | 0.958 | 0.922−0.993 | 1,338.5 | 0.892 | 0.914 | 0.899 |
| IADC | 80 ± 21 | 17 ± 25 | < 0.001 | < | 0.945 | 0.894−0.996 | 53.4 | 0.865 | 0.914 | 0.881 |
| All other ( | HAEMs ( | |||||||||
| D′ | 1,076 ± 184 | 1,784 ± 314 | < 0.001 | > | 0.985 | 0.965−1.000 | 1,529.4 | 0.988 | 0.913 | 0.972 |
| ID | 95 ± 12 | 20 ± 25 | < 0.001 | < | 0.985 | 0.966−1.000 | 51.0 | 0.988 | 0.913 | 0.972 |
| All other ( | FNHs ( | |||||||||
| f′ | 63 ± 35 | 164 ± 58 | < 0.001 | > | 0.968 | 0.938−0.998 | 114.5 | 0.907 | 1.000 | 0.917 |
| If | 82 ± 17 | 32 ± 17 | < 0.001 | < | 0.974 | 0.947−1.000 | 54.6 | 0.918 | 1.000 | 0.927 |
Mean values and standard deviations of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), estimated diffusion coefficient (D′), estimated perfusion fraction (f′), and index maps IADC, ID, and If are presented. The optimal cutoff point of ROC analysis was selected according to maximum Youden index. ADC and D′ values are given in units of 10-6 mm2/s, f′ values are given in units of 10-3, and IADC, ID, and If are given as percentages. Acc Accuracy, ADC Apparent diffusion coefficient, AUC Area under the curve, Dir Test direction (">"/"<" means that a lower/higher test result indicates a more positive test), FNH Focal nodular hyperplasias, HAEM Haemangioma, SD Standard deviation, Sens Sensitivity, Spec Specificity
Receiver operating characteristic analysis for differentiation of malignant from benign liver lesions
| Parameter | Malignant ( | Benign ( | Dir | AUC | 95% Confidence interval | Cutoff | Sen | Spec | Acc | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADC | 1,124 ± 180 | 1,692 ± 313 | < 0.001 | > | 0.958 | 0.922−0.993 | 1,338.5 | 0.892 | 0.914 | 0.899 |
| D′ | 1,057 ± 188 | 1,580 ± 387 | < 0.001 | > | 0.902 | 0.842−0.962 | 1,173.6 | 0.757 | 0.886 | 0.798 |
| f′ | 63 ± 31 | 97 ± 70 | 0.010 | > | 0.622 | 0.491−0.754 | 114.5 | 0.932 | 0.457 | 0.780 |
| IADC | 80 ± 21 | 17 ± 25 | < 0.001 | < | 0.945 | 0.894−0.996 | 53.4 | 0.865 | 0.914 | 0.881 |
| ID | 94 ± 12 | 47 ± 43 | < 0.001 | < | 0.782 | 0.672−0.891 | 51.0 | 0.986 | 0.600 | 0.862 |
| If | 81 ± 16 | 65 ± 30 | 0.032 | < | 0.627 | 0.499−0.756 | 57.0 | 0.905 | 0.457 | 0.761 |
| IDf | 76 ± 17 | 20 ± 18 | < 0.001 | < | 0.975 | 0.950−1.000 | 50.2 | 0.932 | 0.943 | 0.936 |
Mean values and standard deviations of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), estimated diffusion coefficient (D′), estimated perfusion fraction (f′), and index maps IADC, ID, If and combined IDf are presented. The optimal cutoff point of ROC analysis was selected according to maximum Youden index. ADC and D′ values are given in units of 10-6 mm2/s, f′ values are given in units of 10-3, and IADC, ID, If, and IDf are given as percentages. Acc Accuracy, ADC Apparent diffusion coefficient, AUC Area under the curve, Dir Test direction (">"/"<" means that a lower/higher test result indicates a more positive test), SD Standard deviation, Sens Sensitivity, Spec Specificity
Results of visual judgment of index maps IADC, ID, If, and combined IDf
| Parameter | Definite | Probable | All | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TN | FN | FP | TP | TN | FN | FP | TP | N | P | T | Sen | Spec | Acc | |
| Investigator 1 | ||||||||||||||
| IADC | 28 | 2 | 3 | 65 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.946 | 0.829 | 0.908 |
| ID | 22 | 1 | 13 | 73 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.986 | 0.629 | 0.872 |
| If | 6 | 1 | 23 | 73 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.986 | 0.286 | 0.761 |
| IDf | 26 | 2 | 1 | 66 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.973 | 0.914 | 0.954 |
| Investigator 1 repeated after 4 months | ||||||||||||||
| IADC | 28 | 2 | 3 | 65 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.946 | 0.829 | 0.908 |
| IDf | 26 | 2 | 1 | 66 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.973 | 0.914 | 0.954 |
| Investigator 2 | ||||||||||||||
| IADC | 28 | 2 | 3 | 65 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.946 | 0.829 | 0.908 |
| IDf | 26 | 2 | 1 | 66 | 6 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 35 | 74 | 109 | 0.973 | 0.914 | 0.954 |
Acc Accuracy, FN False negative cases, FP False positive cases, N Number of benign cases (TN + FP), P Number of malignant cases (TN + FP), T Total number of cases (N + P), TN True negative cases, Sen Sensitivity, Spec Specificity, TP True positive cases