Cargando…

Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in distinguishing between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and fat poor angiomyolipoma (AML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-three patients with pathologically co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ding, Yuqin, Zeng, Mengsu, Rao, Shengxiang, Chen, Caizhong, Fu, Caixia, Zhou, Jianjun
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Korean Society of Radiology 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27833401
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.6.853
_version_ 1782466502341951488
author Ding, Yuqin
Zeng, Mengsu
Rao, Shengxiang
Chen, Caizhong
Fu, Caixia
Zhou, Jianjun
author_facet Ding, Yuqin
Zeng, Mengsu
Rao, Shengxiang
Chen, Caizhong
Fu, Caixia
Zhou, Jianjun
author_sort Ding, Yuqin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in distinguishing between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and fat poor angiomyolipoma (AML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-three patients with pathologically confirmed renal tumors were included in the study. All patients underwent renal 1.5T MRI, including IVIM protocol with 8 b values (0–800 s/mm(2)). The ADC, diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D(*)), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated. One-way ANOVA was used for comparing ADC and IVIM-derived parameters among clear cell RCC (ccRCC), non-ccRCC and fat poor AML. The diagnostic performance of these parameters was evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The ADC were significantly greater in ccRCCs than that of non-ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs (each p < 0.010, respectively). The D and D(*) among the three groups were significantly different (all p < 0.050). The f of non-ccRCCs were less than that of ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs (each p < 0.050, respectively). In ROC analysis, ADC and D showed similar area under the ROC curve (AUC) values (AUC = 0.955 and 0.964, respectively, p = 0.589) in distinguishing between ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs. The combination of D > 0.97 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, D(*) < 28.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, and f < 13.61% maximized the diagnostic sensitivity for distinguishing non-ccRCCs from fat poor AMLs. The final estimates of AUC (95% confidence interval), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for the entire cohort were 0.875 (0.719–0.962), 100% (23/23), 75% (9/12), 88.5% (23/26), 100% (9/9), and 91.4% (32/35), respectively. CONCLUSION: The ADC and D showed similar diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing between ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs. The IVIM-derived parameters were better than ADC in discriminating non-ccRCCs from fat poor AMLs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5102913
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The Korean Society of Radiology
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-51029132016-11-10 Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma Ding, Yuqin Zeng, Mengsu Rao, Shengxiang Chen, Caizhong Fu, Caixia Zhou, Jianjun Korean J Radiol Genitourinary Imaging OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in distinguishing between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and fat poor angiomyolipoma (AML). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-three patients with pathologically confirmed renal tumors were included in the study. All patients underwent renal 1.5T MRI, including IVIM protocol with 8 b values (0–800 s/mm(2)). The ADC, diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D(*)), and perfusion fraction (f) were calculated. One-way ANOVA was used for comparing ADC and IVIM-derived parameters among clear cell RCC (ccRCC), non-ccRCC and fat poor AML. The diagnostic performance of these parameters was evaluated by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. RESULTS: The ADC were significantly greater in ccRCCs than that of non-ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs (each p < 0.010, respectively). The D and D(*) among the three groups were significantly different (all p < 0.050). The f of non-ccRCCs were less than that of ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs (each p < 0.050, respectively). In ROC analysis, ADC and D showed similar area under the ROC curve (AUC) values (AUC = 0.955 and 0.964, respectively, p = 0.589) in distinguishing between ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs. The combination of D > 0.97 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, D(*) < 28.03 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, and f < 13.61% maximized the diagnostic sensitivity for distinguishing non-ccRCCs from fat poor AMLs. The final estimates of AUC (95% confidence interval), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy for the entire cohort were 0.875 (0.719–0.962), 100% (23/23), 75% (9/12), 88.5% (23/26), 100% (9/9), and 91.4% (32/35), respectively. CONCLUSION: The ADC and D showed similar diagnostic accuracy in distinguishing between ccRCCs and fat poor AMLs. The IVIM-derived parameters were better than ADC in discriminating non-ccRCCs from fat poor AMLs. The Korean Society of Radiology 2016 2016-10-31 /pmc/articles/PMC5102913/ /pubmed/27833401 http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.6.853 Text en Copyright © 2016 The Korean Society of Radiology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Genitourinary Imaging
Ding, Yuqin
Zeng, Mengsu
Rao, Shengxiang
Chen, Caizhong
Fu, Caixia
Zhou, Jianjun
Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma
title Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma
title_full Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma
title_fullStr Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma
title_short Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma
title_sort comparison of biexponential and monoexponential model of diffusion-weighted imaging for distinguishing between common renal cell carcinoma and fat poor angiomyolipoma
topic Genitourinary Imaging
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102913/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27833401
http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.6.853
work_keys_str_mv AT dingyuqin comparisonofbiexponentialandmonoexponentialmodelofdiffusionweightedimagingfordistinguishingbetweencommonrenalcellcarcinomaandfatpoorangiomyolipoma
AT zengmengsu comparisonofbiexponentialandmonoexponentialmodelofdiffusionweightedimagingfordistinguishingbetweencommonrenalcellcarcinomaandfatpoorangiomyolipoma
AT raoshengxiang comparisonofbiexponentialandmonoexponentialmodelofdiffusionweightedimagingfordistinguishingbetweencommonrenalcellcarcinomaandfatpoorangiomyolipoma
AT chencaizhong comparisonofbiexponentialandmonoexponentialmodelofdiffusionweightedimagingfordistinguishingbetweencommonrenalcellcarcinomaandfatpoorangiomyolipoma
AT fucaixia comparisonofbiexponentialandmonoexponentialmodelofdiffusionweightedimagingfordistinguishingbetweencommonrenalcellcarcinomaandfatpoorangiomyolipoma
AT zhoujianjun comparisonofbiexponentialandmonoexponentialmodelofdiffusionweightedimagingfordistinguishingbetweencommonrenalcellcarcinomaandfatpoorangiomyolipoma