Cargando…

Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)

This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm(2)) were analyzed in patients with malignant (...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mesropyan, Narine, Mürtz, Petra, Sprinkart, Alois M., Block, Wolfgang, Luetkens, Julian A., Attenberger, Ulrike, Pieper, Claus C.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8610969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34815436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01108-6
_version_ 1784603204817780736
author Mesropyan, Narine
Mürtz, Petra
Sprinkart, Alois M.
Block, Wolfgang
Luetkens, Julian A.
Attenberger, Ulrike
Pieper, Claus C.
author_facet Mesropyan, Narine
Mürtz, Petra
Sprinkart, Alois M.
Block, Wolfgang
Luetkens, Julian A.
Attenberger, Ulrike
Pieper, Claus C.
author_sort Mesropyan, Narine
collection PubMed
description This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm(2)) were analyzed in patients with malignant (n = 74/54) and benign (n = 35/19) lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM parameters D(1)′ = ADC(50,800), D(2)′ = ADC(250,800), f(1)′ = f(0,50,800), f(2)′ = f(0,250,800), and D*' = D*(0,50,250,800) were calculated voxel-wise. For each lesion, a representative 2D-ROI, a 3D-ROI whole lesion, and a 3D-ROI from “good” slices were placed, including and excluding centrally deviating areas (CDA) if present, and analyzed with various histogram metrics. The diagnostic performance of 2D- and 3D-ROIs was not significantly different; e.g. AUC (ADC/D(1)′/f(1)′) were 0.958/0.902/0.622 for 2D- and 0.942/0.892/0.712 for whole lesion 3D-ROIs excluding CDA at 1.5 T (p > 0.05). For 2D- and 3D-ROIs, AUC (ADC/D(1)′/D(2)′) were significantly higher, when CDA were excluded. With CDA included, AUC (ADC/D(1)′/D(2)′/f(1)′/D*') improved when low percentiles were used instead of averages, and was then comparable to the results of average ROI analysis excluding CDA. For lesion differentiation the use of a representative 2D-ROI is sufficient. CDA should be excluded from ROIs by hand or automatically using low percentiles of diffusion coefficients.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8610969
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86109692021-11-24 Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) Mesropyan, Narine Mürtz, Petra Sprinkart, Alois M. Block, Wolfgang Luetkens, Julian A. Attenberger, Ulrike Pieper, Claus C. Sci Rep Article This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm(2)) were analyzed in patients with malignant (n = 74/54) and benign (n = 35/19) lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM parameters D(1)′ = ADC(50,800), D(2)′ = ADC(250,800), f(1)′ = f(0,50,800), f(2)′ = f(0,250,800), and D*' = D*(0,50,250,800) were calculated voxel-wise. For each lesion, a representative 2D-ROI, a 3D-ROI whole lesion, and a 3D-ROI from “good” slices were placed, including and excluding centrally deviating areas (CDA) if present, and analyzed with various histogram metrics. The diagnostic performance of 2D- and 3D-ROIs was not significantly different; e.g. AUC (ADC/D(1)′/f(1)′) were 0.958/0.902/0.622 for 2D- and 0.942/0.892/0.712 for whole lesion 3D-ROIs excluding CDA at 1.5 T (p > 0.05). For 2D- and 3D-ROIs, AUC (ADC/D(1)′/D(2)′) were significantly higher, when CDA were excluded. With CDA included, AUC (ADC/D(1)′/D(2)′/f(1)′/D*') improved when low percentiles were used instead of averages, and was then comparable to the results of average ROI analysis excluding CDA. For lesion differentiation the use of a representative 2D-ROI is sufficient. CDA should be excluded from ROIs by hand or automatically using low percentiles of diffusion coefficients. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC8610969/ /pubmed/34815436 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01108-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Mesropyan, Narine
Mürtz, Petra
Sprinkart, Alois M.
Block, Wolfgang
Luetkens, Julian A.
Attenberger, Ulrike
Pieper, Claus C.
Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_full Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_fullStr Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_short Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_sort comparison of different roi analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (ivim)
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8610969/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34815436
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01108-6
work_keys_str_mv AT mesropyannarine comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
AT murtzpetra comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
AT sprinkartaloism comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
AT blockwolfgang comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
AT luetkensjuliana comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
AT attenbergerulrike comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
AT pieperclausc comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim