Fangfang Fu1, Nan Meng1,2,3, Zhun Huang4, Jing Sun5, Xuejia Wang3, Jie Shang6, Ting Fang1,2, Pengyang Feng4, Kaiyu Wang7, Dongming Han3, Meiyun Wang1,2. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, Henan Provincial People's Hospital & Zhengzhou University People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 2. Academy of Medical Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 3. Department of MR, the First Affiliated Hospital, Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, China. 4. Department of Medical Imaging, Henan University People's Hospital & Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 5. Department of Pediatrics, Zhengzhou Central Hospital, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 6. Department of Pathology, the First Affiliated Hospital, Xinxiang Medical University, Weihui, China. 7. MR Research China, GE Healthcare, Beijing, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive identification of the histological features of endometrioid adenocarcinoma is necessary. This study aimed to investigate whether amide proton transfer-weighted imaging (APTWI) and multimodel (monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) could predict the histological grade of endometrial adenocarcinoma (EA). In addition, we analyzed the correlation between each parameter and the Ki-67 index. METHODS: A total of 90 EA patients who received pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were enrolled. The magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry [MTRasym (3.5 ppm)], apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC), and water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index (α) were measured and compared. Correlation coefficients between each parameter and histological grade and the Ki-67 index were calculated. Statistical methods included the independent samples t test, Spearman's correlation, and logistic regression. RESULTS: MTRasym (3.5 ppm) [(3.72%±0.31%) vs. (3.27%±0.48%)], f [(3.15%±0.36%) vs. (2.69%±0.83%)], and α [(0.89±0.05) vs. (0.81±0.09)] were higher and ADC [(0.82±0.08) vs. (0.89±0.10) ×10-3 mm2/s], D [(0.67±0.09) vs. (0.81±0.11) ×10-3 mm2/s], and DDC [(1.04±0.09) vs. (1.13±0.13) ×10-3 mm2/s] were lower in high-grade EA than in low-grade EA (P<0.05). MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and D were independent predictors for the histological grade of EA. The combination of MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and D were better able to identify high- and low-grade EA than was each parameter. MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and α were moderately and weakly positively correlated, respectively, with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=0.528, r=0.514, r=0.395, and r=0.367; P<0.05). D was moderately negatively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=-0.540 and r=-0.529; P<0.05). DDC was weakly and moderately negatively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index, respectively (r=-0.473 and r=-0.515; P<0.05). ADC was weakly negatively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=-0.417 and r=-0.427; P<0.05). f was weakly positively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=0.294 and r=0.355; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that both multimodel DWI and APTWI could be used to estimate the histological grade and Ki-67 index of EA, and the combination of high MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and low D may be an effective imaging marker for predicting the grade of EA. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Noninvasive identification of the histological features of endometrioid adenocarcinoma is necessary. This study aimed to investigate whether amide proton transfer-weighted imaging (APTWI) and multimodel (monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) could predict the histological grade of endometrial adenocarcinoma (EA). In addition, we analyzed the correlation between each parameter and the Ki-67 index. METHODS: A total of 90 EA patients who received pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were enrolled. The magnetization transfer ratio asymmetry [MTRasym (3.5 ppm)], apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC), and water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index (α) were measured and compared. Correlation coefficients between each parameter and histological grade and the Ki-67 index were calculated. Statistical methods included the independent samples t test, Spearman's correlation, and logistic regression. RESULTS: MTRasym (3.5 ppm) [(3.72%±0.31%) vs. (3.27%±0.48%)], f [(3.15%±0.36%) vs. (2.69%±0.83%)], and α [(0.89±0.05) vs. (0.81±0.09)] were higher and ADC [(0.82±0.08) vs. (0.89±0.10) ×10-3 mm2/s], D [(0.67±0.09) vs. (0.81±0.11) ×10-3 mm2/s], and DDC [(1.04±0.09) vs. (1.13±0.13) ×10-3 mm2/s] were lower in high-grade EA than in low-grade EA (P<0.05). MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and D were independent predictors for the histological grade of EA. The combination of MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and D were better able to identify high- and low-grade EA than was each parameter. MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and α were moderately and weakly positively correlated, respectively, with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=0.528, r=0.514, r=0.395, and r=0.367; P<0.05). D was moderately negatively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=-0.540 and r=-0.529; P<0.05). DDC was weakly and moderately negatively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index, respectively (r=-0.473 and r=-0.515; P<0.05). ADC was weakly negatively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=-0.417 and r=-0.427; P<0.05). f was weakly positively correlated with histological grade and the Ki-67 index (r=0.294 and r=0.355; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found that both multimodel DWI and APTWI could be used to estimate the histological grade and Ki-67 index of EA, and the combination of high MTRasym (3.5 ppm) and low D may be an effective imaging marker for predicting the grade of EA. 2022 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Authors: Guang Jia; Ronney Abaza; JoAnna D Williams; Debra L Zynger; Jinyuan Zhou; Zarine K Shah; Mitva Patel; Steffen Sammet; Lai Wei; Robert R Bahnson; Michael V Knopp Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yan Bai; Yusong Lin; Jie Tian; Dapeng Shi; Jingliang Cheng; E Mark Haacke; Xiaohua Hong; Bo Ma; Jinyuan Zhou; Meiyun Wang Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M Ahmed; J F Al-Khafaji; C A Class; W Wei; P Ramalingam; H Wakkaa; P T Soliman; M Frumovitz; R B Iyer; P R Bhosale Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2018-06-09 Impact factor: 2.350