Comparison of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma: a preliminary study.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Qingqiang Zhu, Jun Sun, Jing Ye, Wenrong Zhu, Wenxin Chen
{"title":"Comparison of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma: a preliminary study.","authors":"Qingqiang Zhu, Jun Sun, Jing Ye, Wenrong Zhu, Wenxin Chen","doi":"10.1093/bjr/tqae088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Quantitative comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) from renal oncocytoma (RO).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 48 patients with renal tumours who had undergone DWI and IVIM were divided into two groups-ChRCC (n = 28) and RO (n = 20) groups, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusivity (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and their diagnostic efficacy were compared between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The D* values were higher in the ChRCCs group compared to the RO groups (0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s, P < .05). Moreover, the ADC, D and f values were higher in ROs compared to ChRCCs (0.61 ± 0.08 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.51 ± 0.06 × 10-3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.15 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.86 ± 0.07 × 10-3 mm2/s, 0.41 ± 0.05 vs 0.28 ± 0.02, P < .05). The areas of the ADC, D, D* and f values under the ROC curves in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs were 0.713, 0.839, 0.856 and 0.906, respectively. The cut-off values of ADC, D, D* and f were 0.54, 0.91, 0.013 and 0.31, respectively. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the f values were 0.906, 89.3%, 80.0% and 89.6%, respectively. For pairwise comparisons of ROC curves and diagnostic efficacy, IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs (P = .013, .016, and .008) with f having the highest diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>IVIM parameters presented better performance than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs.</p><p><strong>Advances in knowledge: </strong>(1) D* values of ChRCCs were higher, while ADC, D and f values were lower than those of RO tumours. (2) f values had the highest diagnostic efficacy in differentiating ChRCC from RO. (3) IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCC from RO (P=.013, .016, and .008).</p>","PeriodicalId":9306,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"1146-1152"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11135799/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bjr/tqae088","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Quantitative comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) from renal oncocytoma (RO).

Methods: A total of 48 patients with renal tumours who had undergone DWI and IVIM were divided into two groups-ChRCC (n = 28) and RO (n = 20) groups, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusivity (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and their diagnostic efficacy were compared between the two groups.

Results: The D* values were higher in the ChRCCs group compared to the RO groups (0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s, P < .05). Moreover, the ADC, D and f values were higher in ROs compared to ChRCCs (0.61 ± 0.08 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.51 ± 0.06 × 10-3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.15 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.86 ± 0.07 × 10-3 mm2/s, 0.41 ± 0.05 vs 0.28 ± 0.02, P < .05). The areas of the ADC, D, D* and f values under the ROC curves in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs were 0.713, 0.839, 0.856 and 0.906, respectively. The cut-off values of ADC, D, D* and f were 0.54, 0.91, 0.013 and 0.31, respectively. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the f values were 0.906, 89.3%, 80.0% and 89.6%, respectively. For pairwise comparisons of ROC curves and diagnostic efficacy, IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs (P = .013, .016, and .008) with f having the highest diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusion: IVIM parameters presented better performance than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs.

Advances in knowledge: (1) D* values of ChRCCs were higher, while ADC, D and f values were lower than those of RO tumours. (2) f values had the highest diagnostic efficacy in differentiating ChRCC from RO. (3) IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCC from RO (P=.013, .016, and .008).

传统 DWI 与体素内非相干运动在鉴别嗜铬细胞瘤和肾肿瘤细胞瘤方面的比较:一项初步研究。
目的定量比较传统弥散加权成像(DWI)和体内非相干运动成像(IVIM)在鉴别嗜色性肾细胞癌(ChRCC)和肾肿瘤细胞瘤(RO)方面的诊断效果:将48例接受过DWI和IVIM检查的肾肿瘤患者分为两组--ChRCC组(28例)和RO组(20例),比较两组患者的表观弥散系数(ADC)、真实弥散系数(D)、假弥散系数(D*)、灌注分数(f)及其诊断效果:结果:与 RO 组相比,ChRCCs 组的 D* 值更高(0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs. 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s,p 结论:IVIM 参数的性能优于 AD 组(0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs. 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s,p):在区分 ChRCC 和 RO 方面,IVIM 参数比 ADC 表现更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Journal of Radiology
British Journal of Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.80%
发文量
330
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: BJR is the international research journal of the British Institute of Radiology and is the oldest scientific journal in the field of radiology and related sciences. Dating back to 1896, BJR’s history is radiology’s history, and the journal has featured some landmark papers such as the first description of Computed Tomography "Computerized transverse axial tomography" by Godfrey Hounsfield in 1973. A valuable historical resource, the complete BJR archive has been digitized from 1896. Quick Facts: - 2015 Impact Factor – 1.840 - Receipt to first decision – average of 6 weeks - Acceptance to online publication – average of 3 weeks - ISSN: 0007-1285 - eISSN: 1748-880X Open Access option
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信