The British journal of radiology · 2020
Differentiation of salivary gland tumor using diffusion-weighted imaging with a fractional order calculus model.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Wei, Zhu Liu-Ning, Dai Yong-Ming, Jiang Jia-Suo, Bu Shou-Shan, Xu Xiao-Quan, Wu Fei-Yun
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility of using imaging parameters (D, β and μ) obtained from fractional order calculus (FROC) diffusion model to differentiate salivary gland tumors.
METHODS: 15 b-value (0-2000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was scanned in 62 patients with salivary gland tumors (47 benign and 15 malignant). Diffusion coefficient D, fractional order parameter β (which correlates with tissue heterogeneity) and a microstructural quantity μ of the solid portion within the tumor were calculated, and compared between benign and malignant groups, or among pleomorphic adenoma (PA), Warthin's tumor (WT), and malignant tumor (MT) groups. Performance of FROC parameters for differentiation was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
RESULTS: None of the FROC parameters exhibited significant differences between benign and malignant group (D, p = 0.150; β, p = 0.967; μ, p = 0.693). WT showed significantly lower D (p < 0.001) and β (p < 0.001), while higher μ (p = 0.001) than PA. Combination of D, β and μ showed optimal diagnostic performance (area under the curve, AUC, 0.998). MT showed significantly lower D (p = 0.001) and β (p = 0.025) than PA, while no significant difference was found on μ (p = 0.064). Combination of D and β showed optimal diagnostic performance (AUC, 0.933). Significant difference was found on β (p = 0.027) between MT and WT, while not on D (p = 0.806) and μ (p = 0.789). Setting a βof 0.615 as the cut-off value, optimal diagnostic performance could be obtained (AUC = 0.806).
CONCLUSION: A non-Gaussian FROC diffusion model can serve as a noninvasive and quantitative imaging technique for differentiating salivary gland tumors.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (1) PA showed higher D and β and lower μ than WT. (2) PA had higher D and β than MT. (3) WT demonstrated lower β than MT. (4) β, as a new FROC parameter, could offer an added value to the differentiation.
METHODS: 15 b-value (0-2000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) was scanned in 62 patients with salivary gland tumors (47 benign and 15 malignant). Diffusion coefficient D, fractional order parameter β (which correlates with tissue heterogeneity) and a microstructural quantity μ of the solid portion within the tumor were calculated, and compared between benign and malignant groups, or among pleomorphic adenoma (PA), Warthin's tumor (WT), and malignant tumor (MT) groups. Performance of FROC parameters for differentiation was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis.
RESULTS: None of the FROC parameters exhibited significant differences between benign and malignant group (D, p = 0.150; β, p = 0.967; μ, p = 0.693). WT showed significantly lower D (p < 0.001) and β (p < 0.001), while higher μ (p = 0.001) than PA. Combination of D, β and μ showed optimal diagnostic performance (area under the curve, AUC, 0.998). MT showed significantly lower D (p = 0.001) and β (p = 0.025) than PA, while no significant difference was found on μ (p = 0.064). Combination of D and β showed optimal diagnostic performance (AUC, 0.933). Significant difference was found on β (p = 0.027) between MT and WT, while not on D (p = 0.806) and μ (p = 0.789). Setting a βof 0.615 as the cut-off value, optimal diagnostic performance could be obtained (AUC = 0.806).
CONCLUSION: A non-Gaussian FROC diffusion model can serve as a noninvasive and quantitative imaging technique for differentiating salivary gland tumors.
ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (1) PA showed higher D and β and lower μ than WT. (2) PA had higher D and β than MT. (3) WT demonstrated lower β than MT. (4) β, as a new FROC parameter, could offer an added value to the differentiation.