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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |