Intravoxel Incoherent Motion MRI for the Differentiation Between Mass Forming Chronic Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Carcinoma

被引:172
作者
Klauss, Miriam [2 ]
Lemke, Andreas [3 ]
Gruenberg, Katharina
Simon, Dirk
Re, Thomas J. [1 ]
Wente, Mortiz N. [4 ]
Laun, Frederik B. [5 ]
Kauczor, Hans-Ulrich [2 ]
Delorme, Stefan
Grenacher, Lars [2 ]
Stieltjes, Bram [1 ]
机构
[1] DKFZ, Dept Radiol, Sect Quantitat Imaging Based Dis Characterizat, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
[2] Univ Heidelberg, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Heidelberg, Germany
[3] Univ Heidelberg, Fac Med Mannheim, D-6800 Mannheim, Germany
[4] Univ Heidelberg, Dept Surg, D-6900 Heidelberg, Germany
[5] DKFZ, Dept Med Phys Radiol, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany
关键词
IVIM; DWI; diffusion; pancreas; differentiation; APPARENT-DIFFUSION-COEFFICIENT; PHASE HELICAL CT; QUANTITATIVE-ANALYSIS; DUAL-PHASE; CANCER; ADENOCARCINOMA; CIRRHOSIS; PERFUSION;
D O I
10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181fb3bf2
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose: To determine which of the quantitative parameters obtained from intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is the most significant for the differentiation between pancreatic carcinoma and mass-forming chronic pancreatitis. Materials and Methods: Twenty-nine patients with pancreatic masses were included, 9 proved to have a mass-forming pancreatitis and 20 had a pancreatic carcinoma. The patients were studied using intravoxel incoherent motion DWI with 11 b-values and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), the true diffusion constant (D) and the perfusion fraction (f) were calculated. The diagnostic strength of the parameters was evaluated using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Results: The ADC in chronic pancreatitis was higher than in pancreatic carcinoma with significant differences at b = 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 300 s/mm(2) (ADC(50) = 3.17 +/- 0.67 vs. 2.55 +/- 1.09, ADC(75) = 2.46 +/- 0.4 vs. 1.93 +/- 0.52, ADC(100) = 2.28 +/- 0.48 vs. 1.73 +/- 0.45, ADC(150) = 1.97 +/- 0.26 vs. 1.63 +/- 0.40, ADC(200) = 1.98 +/- 0.24 vs. 1.53 +/- 0.28, and ADC(300) = 1.76 +/- 0.19 vs. 1.46 +/- 0.31 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). No significant differences were found at b = 25, 400, 600, and 800 s/mm(2) (ADC(25) = 4.69 +/- 0.65 vs. 4.04 +/- 1.35, ADC(400) = 1.57 +/- 0.21 vs. 1.37 +/- 0.30, ADC(600) = 1.38 +/- 0.18 vs. 1.24 +/- 0.25, and ADC(800) = 1.27 +/- 0.10 vs. 1.18 +/- 0.19 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s) nor using ADC(tot) (1.42 +/- 0.23 vs. 1.28 +/- 0.12 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s). The perfusion fraction f was significantly higher in pancreatitis compared with pancreatic carcinoma (16.3% +/- 5.30% vs. 8.2% +/- 4.00%, P = 0.0001). There was no significant difference between groups for D (1.07 +/- 0.224 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s for chronic pancreatitis and 1.09 +/- 0.3 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s for pancreatic carcinoma, P = 0.66). For f, the highest area under the curve (0.894) and combined sensitivity (80%) and specificity (89.9%) were found. Conclusions: There were significant differences in ADC(50-300) between chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma. Because D is not significantly different between groups, differences in ADC can be attributed mainly to differences in perfusion. The perfusion fraction f proved to be the superior DWI-derived parameter for differentiation of mass-forming pancreatitis and pancreatic carcinoma.
引用
收藏
页码:57 / 63
页数:7
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]   Field Strength and Diffusion Encoding Technique Affect the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements in Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Abdomen [J].
Dale, Brian M. ;
Braithwaite, Adam C. ;
Boll, Daniel T. ;
Merkle, Elmar M. .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2010, 45 (02) :104-108
[2]   Pancreatic Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI): Comparison Between Mass-Forming Focal Pancreatitis (FP), Pancreatic Cancer (PC), and Normal Pancreas [J].
Fattahi, Rana ;
Balci, N. Cem ;
Perman, William H. ;
Hsueh, Eddy C. ;
Alkaade, Samer ;
Havlioglu, Necat ;
Burton, Frank R. .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2009, 29 (02) :350-356
[3]   Pancreatic malignancy: Value of arterial, pancreatic, and hepatic phase imaging with multi-detector row CT [J].
Fletcher, JG ;
Wiersema, MJ ;
Farrell, MA ;
Fidler, JL ;
Burgart, LJ ;
Koyama, T ;
Johnson, CD ;
Stephens, DH ;
Ward, EM ;
Harmsen, WS .
RADIOLOGY, 2003, 229 (01) :81-90
[4]   Pancreatic carcinoma: What is the best imaging test? [J].
Freeny, PC .
PANCREATOLOGY, 2001, 1 (06) :604-609
[5]  
Gemmel Christian, 2009, Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, V3, P89, DOI 10.1586/17474124.3.1.89
[6]   Computed tomography of pancreatic tumors [J].
Grenacher, L. ;
Klauss, M. .
RADIOLOGE, 2009, 49 (02) :107-123
[7]   Dual-phase versus single-phase helical CT to detect and assess resectability of pancreatic carcinoma. [J].
Imbriaco, M ;
Megibow, AJ ;
Camera, L ;
Pace, L ;
Mainenti, PP ;
Romano, M ;
Selva, G ;
Salvatore, M .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2002, 178 (06) :1473-1479
[8]   Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2005, Featuring Trends in Lung Cancer, Tobacco Use, and Tobacco Control [J].
Jemal, Ahmedin ;
Thun, Michael J. ;
Ries, Lynn A. G. ;
Howe, Holly L. ;
Weir, Hannah K. ;
Center, Melissa M. ;
Ward, Elizabeth ;
Wu, Xiao-Cheng ;
Eheman, Christie ;
Anderson, Robert ;
Ajani, Umed A. ;
Kohler, Betsy ;
Edwards, Brenda K. .
JNCI-JOURNAL OF THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE, 2008, 100 (23) :1672-1694
[9]  
Jones DK, 1999, MAGNET RESON MED, V42, P515, DOI 10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(199909)42:3<515::AID-MRM14>3.0.CO
[10]  
2-Q