Comparison of image quality and quantitative parameters in intravoxel incoherent motion imaging at 3-T based on turbo spin-echo and echo-planar imaging in patients with oral cancer

PURPOSE: To compare the image quality, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and intravoxel incoherent motion- (IVIM) derived parameters of IVIM imaging based on turbo spin-echo (TSE) and echo-planar imaging (EPI) of patients with oral cancer and to assess the equivalence of the ADC and IVIM-derived parameters. METHODS: Thirty patients with oral cancer underwent TSE-IVIM and EPI-IVIM imaging using a 3.0-T system. The distortion ratio (DR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), qualitative evaluations of image quality, ADC, pure diffusion coefficient (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) were compared between the two sequences. The consistency of the quantitative parameters in oral cancer between the TSE and EPI sequences was evaluated using a Bland–Altman analysis. RESULTS: TSE-IVIM had a significantly smaller DR than EPI-IVIM (P < 0.001). The CNR of EPI-IVIM on most of the anatomical sites was significantly higher than that of TSE-IVIM (P < 0.05), while the SNR was not significantly different (P > 0.05). TSE-IVIM had significantly higher image quality, less distortion and artifacts, and lower image contrast compared with EPI-IVIM (P < 0.05). The lesion-edge sharpness and diagnostic confidence of EPI-IVIM were lower than that of TSE-IVIM, although no significant differences existed (P > 0.05). The ADC and D of TSE-IVIM had better reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.9). Although no significant difference existed for the ADC and IVIM-derived parameters of lesions between the two sequences (P > 0.05), wide limits of agreement were found in the Bland–Altman plots. CONCLUSION: TSE-IVIM could be used as an alternative technique to EPI-IVIM for patients with oral cancer because of its better image quality. Furthermore, TSE-IVIM can provide more accurate quantitative parameters. However, the quantitative parameters derived from the two IVIM techniques cannot be used as equivalent parameters for patients with oral cancer.