Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2020 / Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2

Quantitative assessment of diffusion kurtosis imaging depicting deep myometrial invasion: a comparative analysis with diffusion-weighted imaging

Pages
74–81
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Both DKI and DWI models showed relatively equivalent effectiveness.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE We aimed to investigate histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to distinguish between deep myometrial invasion and superficial myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma (EC).METHODSA total of 118 pathologically confirmed EC patients with preoperative DWI were included.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data were postprocessed with a DKI (b value of 0, 700, 1400, and 2000 s/mm2 ) model for quantitation of apparent diffusion values (D) and apparent kurtosis coefficient values (K) for non-Gaussian distribution.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Both DKI and DWI models showed relatively equivalent effectiveness.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

PURPOSE We aimed to investigate histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to distinguish between deep myometrial invasion and superficial myometrial invasion in endometrial carcinoma (EC).METHODSA total of 118 pathologically confirmed EC patients with preoperative DWI were included. The data were postprocessed with a DKI (b value of 0, 700, 1400, and 2000 s/mm2 ) model for quantitation of apparent diffusion values (D) and apparent kurtosis coefficient values (K) for non-Gaussian distribution. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) was postprocessed with a conventional DWI model (b values of 0 and 800 s/mm2 ). A whole-tumor analysis approach was used. Comparisons of the histogram parameters of D, K, and ADC were carried out for the deep myometrialinvasion and superficial myometrial invasion subgroups. Diagnostic performance of the imaging parameters was assessed.RESULTSThe Dmean, D10th, and D90th in deep myometrial invasion group were significantly lower than those in superficial invasion group (P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.023, respectively), as well as the ADCmean, ADC10th, and ADC90th (P = 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.042, respectively). The Kmean and K90th were significantly higher in deep invasion group than those in superficial myometrial invasion group (P = 0.002 and P = 0.026, respectively). The D10th, Kmean, and ADC10th had a relatively higher area under the curve (AUC) (0.72, 0.66, and 0.71, respectively) than other parameters for distinguishing deep myometrial invasion of EC. D10th showed a relatively higher AUC than ADC10th for the differentiation of lesions with deep myometrial invasion from those with superficial myometrial invasion (0.72 vs. 0.71), but the variation was not statistically significant (P = 0.35).CONCLUSIONDistribution of DKI and conventional DWI parameters characterized by histogram analysis may represent an indicator for deep myometrial invasion in EC. Both DKI and DWI models showed relatively equivalent effectiveness.

🔖

Cite This Article

SONG, J., LU, S., ZHANG, J. W., LIU, X., LUO, C., CHEN, Y. T. (2020). Quantitative assessment of diffusion kurtosis imaging depicting deep myometrial invasion: a comparative analysis with diffusion-weighted imaging. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 26 - Sayı: 2, 74–81. https://ajindex.com/articles/346361

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012
  2. 10–29. [CrossRef] 2. Singh N. Hirschowitz L. Zaino R, et al. Pathologic prognostic factors in endometrial carcinoma (other than tumor type and grade). Int J Gynecol Pathol 2019
  3. S93–S113. [CrossRef] 3. Braun MM, Overbeek-Wager EA, Grumbo RJ. Diagnose and management of endometrial cancer. Am Fam Physician 2016
  4. 468–474. 4. Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of endometrial cancer: differentiation from benign endometrial lesions and preoperative assessment of myometrial invasion. Acta Radiol 2009
  5. 947–953. [CrossRef] 5. Alektiar KM, McKee A, Lin O, et al. The significance of the amount of myometrial invasion in patients with Stage IB endometrial carcinoma. Cancer 2002
  6. 316–321. [CrossRef] 6. Binder PS, Mutch DG. Update on prognostic markers for endometrial cancer. Womens Health 2014
  7. 277–288. [CrossRef] 7. Chan JK, Kapp DS. Role of complete lymphadenectomy in endometrioid uterine cancer. Lancet Oncol 2007
  8. 831–841. [CrossRef] 8. Salvesen HB, Haldorsen IS, Trovik J. Markers for individualised therapy in endometrial carcinoma. Lancet Oncol 2012
  9. e353–e361. [CrossRef] 9. Koplay M, Dogan NU, Erdogan H, et al. Diagnostic efficacy of diffusion-weighted MRI for pre-operative assessment of myometrial and cervical invasion and pelvic lymph node metastasis in endometrial carcinoma. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2014
  10. 538–546. [CrossRef] 10. Gallego JC, Porta A, Pardo MC, Fernández C. Evaluation of myometrial invasion in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance and intraoperative frozen sections. Abdom Imaging 2014
  11. 1021–1026. [CrossRef] 11. Beddy P, Moyle P, Kataoka M, et al. Evaluation of depth of myometrial invasion and overall staging in endometrial cancer: comparison of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2012
  12. 530– 537. [CrossRef] 12. Nougaret S, Reinhold C, Alsharif SS, et al. Endometrial cancer: combined MR volumetry and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessment of myometrial and lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade. Radiology 2015
  13. 797–808. [CrossRef] 13. Inoue C, Fujii S, Kaneda S, et al. Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters of endometrioid carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015
  14. 213–219. [CrossRef] 14. Husby JA, Salvesen ØO, Magnussen IJ, et al. Tumour apparent diffusion coefficient