Cargando…

Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values

OBJECTIVE: The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is increasingly used as a quantitative biomarker in oncological imaging. ADC calculation is based on raw diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data, and multiple post-processing methods (PPMs) have been proposed for this purpose. We investigated whether...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zeilinger, Martin Georg, Lell, Michael, Baltzer, Pascal Andreas Thomas, Dörfler, Arnd, Uder, Michael, Dietzel, Matthias
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27251180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4403-6
_version_ 1783262752349880320
author Zeilinger, Martin Georg
Lell, Michael
Baltzer, Pascal Andreas Thomas
Dörfler, Arnd
Uder, Michael
Dietzel, Matthias
author_facet Zeilinger, Martin Georg
Lell, Michael
Baltzer, Pascal Andreas Thomas
Dörfler, Arnd
Uder, Michael
Dietzel, Matthias
author_sort Zeilinger, Martin Georg
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is increasingly used as a quantitative biomarker in oncological imaging. ADC calculation is based on raw diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data, and multiple post-processing methods (PPMs) have been proposed for this purpose. We investigated whether PPM has an impact on final ADC values. METHODS: Sixty-five lesions scanned with a standardized whole-body DWI-protocol at 3 T served as input data (EPI-DWI, b-values: 50, 400 and 800 s/mm(2)). Using exactly the same ROI coordinates, four different PPM (ADC_1–ADC_4) were executed to calculate corresponding ADC values, given as [10(-3) mm(2)/s] of each lesion. Statistical analysis was performed to intra-individually compare ADC values stratified by PPM (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests: α = 1 %; descriptive statistics; relative difference/∆; coefficient of variation/CV). RESULTS: Stratified by PPM, mean ADCs ranged from 1.136–1.206 *10(-3) mm(2)/s (∆ = 7.0 %). Variances between PPM were pronounced in the upper range of ADC values (maximum: 2.540–2.763 10(-3) mm(2)/s, ∆ = 8 %). Pairwise comparisons identified significant differences between all PPM (P ≤ 0.003; mean CV = 7.2 %) and reached 0.137 *10(-3) mm(2)/s within the 25th–75th percentile. CONCLUSION: Altering the PPM had a significant impact on the ADC value. This should be considered if ADC values from different post-processing methods are compared in patient studies. KEY POINTS: • Post-processing methods significantly influenced ADC values. • The mean coefficient of ADC variation due to PPM was 7.2 %. • To achieve reproducible ADC values, standardization of post-processing is recommended. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4403-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5591618
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55916182017-09-25 Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values Zeilinger, Martin Georg Lell, Michael Baltzer, Pascal Andreas Thomas Dörfler, Arnd Uder, Michael Dietzel, Matthias Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance OBJECTIVE: The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is increasingly used as a quantitative biomarker in oncological imaging. ADC calculation is based on raw diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) data, and multiple post-processing methods (PPMs) have been proposed for this purpose. We investigated whether PPM has an impact on final ADC values. METHODS: Sixty-five lesions scanned with a standardized whole-body DWI-protocol at 3 T served as input data (EPI-DWI, b-values: 50, 400 and 800 s/mm(2)). Using exactly the same ROI coordinates, four different PPM (ADC_1–ADC_4) were executed to calculate corresponding ADC values, given as [10(-3) mm(2)/s] of each lesion. Statistical analysis was performed to intra-individually compare ADC values stratified by PPM (Wilcoxon signed-rank tests: α = 1 %; descriptive statistics; relative difference/∆; coefficient of variation/CV). RESULTS: Stratified by PPM, mean ADCs ranged from 1.136–1.206 *10(-3) mm(2)/s (∆ = 7.0 %). Variances between PPM were pronounced in the upper range of ADC values (maximum: 2.540–2.763 10(-3) mm(2)/s, ∆ = 8 %). Pairwise comparisons identified significant differences between all PPM (P ≤ 0.003; mean CV = 7.2 %) and reached 0.137 *10(-3) mm(2)/s within the 25th–75th percentile. CONCLUSION: Altering the PPM had a significant impact on the ADC value. This should be considered if ADC values from different post-processing methods are compared in patient studies. KEY POINTS: • Post-processing methods significantly influenced ADC values. • The mean coefficient of ADC variation due to PPM was 7.2 %. • To achieve reproducible ADC values, standardization of post-processing is recommended. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00330-016-4403-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2016-06-01 2017 /pmc/articles/PMC5591618/ /pubmed/27251180 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4403-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Magnetic Resonance
Zeilinger, Martin Georg
Lell, Michael
Baltzer, Pascal Andreas Thomas
Dörfler, Arnd
Uder, Michael
Dietzel, Matthias
Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
title Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
title_full Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
title_fullStr Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
title_full_unstemmed Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
title_short Impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
title_sort impact of post-processing methods on apparent diffusion coefficient values
topic Magnetic Resonance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591618/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27251180
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4403-6
work_keys_str_mv AT zeilingermartingeorg impactofpostprocessingmethodsonapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalues
AT lellmichael impactofpostprocessingmethodsonapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalues
AT baltzerpascalandreasthomas impactofpostprocessingmethodsonapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalues
AT dorflerarnd impactofpostprocessingmethodsonapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalues
AT udermichael impactofpostprocessingmethodsonapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalues
AT dietzelmatthias impactofpostprocessingmethodsonapparentdiffusioncoefficientvalues