Magnetic resonance imaging · 2016
Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion weighted MRI of cervical cancer - Correlated with tumor differentiation and perfusion.
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.
Zhou Yan, Liu Jianyu, Liu Congrong, Jia Jing, Li Nan, Xie Lizhi, Zhou Zhenyu, Zhang Ziheng, Zheng Dandan, He Wei, Shen Yang, Lu Weidan, Zhu Huici
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: 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)mm(2)/s, D=(0.80±0.11), (0.78±0.07), (0.69±0.06)×10(-3)mm(2)/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)mm(2)/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.
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)mm(2)/s, D=(0.80±0.11), (0.78±0.07), (0.69±0.06)×10(-3)mm(2)/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)mm(2)/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.