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