Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion weighted MRI of cervical cancer — Correlated with tumor differentiation and perfusion

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Yan Zhou^a ; Jianyu Liu^a ; ^{jyliubysy@163.com" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Congrong Liu^a ; ^b ; Jing Jia^c ; Nan Li^d ; Lizhi Xie^e ; Zhenyu Zhou^e ; Ziheng Zhang^e ; Dandan Zheng^e ; Wei He^a ; Yang Shen^a ; Weidan Lu^a ; Huici Zhu^a
• 关键词：ADC ; apparent diffusion coefficient ; DCE ; dynamic contrast enhanced ; DWI ; diffusion weighted imaging ; FIGO ; International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians ; IVIM ; intravoxel incoherent motion ; MVD ; microvessel density ; ROI ; regions of interest
• 刊名：Magnetic Resonance Imaging
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：October 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：34
• 期：8
• 页码：1050-1056
• 全文大小：654 K

文摘

To investigate the value of parameters derived from IVIM model in grading of uterine cervical cancer and the relationship between perfusion parameters derived from IVIM and that from DCE-MRI.

Methods

Parameters of DWI (ADC, D, f, D*) and semi-quantitative parameters of DCE-MRI (Slop, Maxslop, CER, Washout, AUC90) were assessed in 24 female with cervical cancers. Except for ROIs encompassed all of the area of tumors in axial plane (A_all), ROIs on tumor edge (A_peri) and tumor center (A_central) were drawn. All of the parameters were compared among three pathology grades. Perfusion parameters derived from IVIM were correlated with that from DCE-MRI.

Results

For G1, G2 and G3 tumors, on tumor edge ADC = (1.03 ± 0.11), (1.05 ± 0.10), (0.90 ± 0.05) × 10^− 3 mm²/s, D = (0.80 ± 0.11), (0.78 ± 0.07), (0.69 ± 0.06) × 10^− 3 mm²/s, and f = (0.19 ± 0.03), (0.22 ± 0.02), (0.24 ± 0.03). The differences among groups were significant (P < 0.05). On tumor center, ADC = (0.90 ± 0.10), (0.85 ± 0.03), (0.80 ± 0.07) × 10^− 3 mm²/s with significant differences (P = 0.027). The other parameter, D and f of tumor center, as well as D* of all tumor areas, were of no statistic significance. Most of the DCE-MRI parameters negatively correlated with tumor volume. Although the correlation between f and slop was statistic significant, R = 0.277 meant a negligible correlation. f had week correlation with Maxslop, CER and AUC90 (R = 0.361, 0.400 and 0.405; P < 0.001). D* showed no statistic significant correlation with all of the DCE parameters.

Conclusion

IVIM model could possibly be used to evaluate tumor differentiation and perfusion, providing an alternative for DCE-MRI.