Limits...
EADC Values in Diagnosis of Renal Lesions by 3.0 T Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Compared with the ADC Values.

Zhang YL, Yu BL, Ren J, Qu K, Wang K, Qiang YQ, Li CX, Sun XW - Appl Magn Reson (2012)

Bottom Line: We found renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can be distinguished from angiomyolipoma, and clear cell carcinoma can be distinguished from non-clear cell carcinoma by EADC value.In conclusion, EADC map shows the internal structure of the kidney tumor more intuitively than the ADC map dose, and is also in line with the observation habits of the clinicians.EADC can be used as an effective imaging method for tumor diagnosis.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Imaging, First Affiliated Hospital, Medicine School of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061 Shaanxi People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT
Exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (EADC) is an indicator of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and reflects the pathological changes of tissues quantitatively. However, no study has been investigated in the space-occupying kidney disease using EADC values. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic role of EADC values at a high magnetic field strength (3.0 T) in kidney neoplastic lesions, compared with that of the ADC values. Ninety patients with suspected renal tumors (including 101 suspected renal lesions) and 20 healthy volunteers were performed MRI scanning. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed with a single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) sequence at a diffusion gradient of b = 500 s/mm(2). We found renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can be distinguished from angiomyolipoma, and clear cell carcinoma can be distinguished from non-clear cell carcinoma by EADC value. There was significant difference in overall EADC values between renal cell carcinoma (0.150 ± 0.059) and angiomyolipoma (0.270 ± 0.108) when b value was 500 s/mm(2). When receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was higher than 0.192, the sensitivity and specificity of EADC value of renal cell carcinoma were 84.6 and 81.1 %, respectively. In conclusion, EADC map shows the internal structure of the kidney tumor more intuitively than the ADC map dose, and is also in line with the observation habits of the clinicians. EADC can be used as an effective imaging method for tumor diagnosis.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the threshold EADC (0.192) and ADC value (1.66 × 10−3 mm2/s) was used for differentiating RCC from RAML. The sensitivity and specificity are 84.6 % in EADC and 81.1 % in ADC, respectively. No significant difference was found in area under the ROC curve between EADC and ADC values by U-test analysis (p > 0.05)
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3585986&req=5

Fig6: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the threshold EADC (0.192) and ADC value (1.66 × 10−3 mm2/s) was used for differentiating RCC from RAML. The sensitivity and specificity are 84.6 % in EADC and 81.1 % in ADC, respectively. No significant difference was found in area under the ROC curve between EADC and ADC values by U-test analysis (p > 0.05)

Mentions: There was statistically significant difference between overall EADC value in renal cell carcinoma (0.150 ± 0.059) and EADC in angiomyolipoma (0.270 ± 0.108) (p < 0.05). Correspondingly, there was also statistically significant difference between ADC in renal cell carcinoma [(2.001 ± 0.322) × 10−3mm2/s] and in angiomyolipoma [(1.402 ± 0.461) × 10−3mm2/s] (p < 0.05). When EADC value was more than 0.192, and ADC value was less than 1.66 × 10−3mm2/s, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma was 84.6 and 81.1 %, respectively (Fig. 6). No significant difference was found in area under the ROC curve between EADC and ADC values by U-test analysis (p > 0.05), which might be due to the correlation between EADC and ADC (EADC = exp[−(b × ADC)]). Renal cell carcinoma with typical performance is not easy to be misdiagnosed as angiomyolipoma. The greatest difference between atypical angiomyolipoma and renal cell carcinoma lies in their different renal parenchymal structures. There was statistical difference in EADC between parenchyma of renal cell carcinoma (0.299 ± 0.086) and the non-fatty part of angiomyolipoma (0.179 ± 0.088) (p < 0.05). Correspondingly, there was statistical difference in ADC between parenchyma of renal cell carcinoma [(1.264 ± 0.271) × 10−3 mm2/s] and the non-fatty part of angiomyolipoma [(1.717 ± 0.431) × 10−3 mm2/s] (p < 0.05) (Fig. 7). Our measurement method is easier to operate and was more suitable for the differential diagnosis in atypical lesions.Fig. 6


EADC Values in Diagnosis of Renal Lesions by 3.0 T Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Compared with the ADC Values.

Zhang YL, Yu BL, Ren J, Qu K, Wang K, Qiang YQ, Li CX, Sun XW - Appl Magn Reson (2012)

Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the threshold EADC (0.192) and ADC value (1.66 × 10−3 mm2/s) was used for differentiating RCC from RAML. The sensitivity and specificity are 84.6 % in EADC and 81.1 % in ADC, respectively. No significant difference was found in area under the ROC curve between EADC and ADC values by U-test analysis (p > 0.05)
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3585986&req=5

Fig6: Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the threshold EADC (0.192) and ADC value (1.66 × 10−3 mm2/s) was used for differentiating RCC from RAML. The sensitivity and specificity are 84.6 % in EADC and 81.1 % in ADC, respectively. No significant difference was found in area under the ROC curve between EADC and ADC values by U-test analysis (p > 0.05)
Mentions: There was statistically significant difference between overall EADC value in renal cell carcinoma (0.150 ± 0.059) and EADC in angiomyolipoma (0.270 ± 0.108) (p < 0.05). Correspondingly, there was also statistically significant difference between ADC in renal cell carcinoma [(2.001 ± 0.322) × 10−3mm2/s] and in angiomyolipoma [(1.402 ± 0.461) × 10−3mm2/s] (p < 0.05). When EADC value was more than 0.192, and ADC value was less than 1.66 × 10−3mm2/s, the sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma was 84.6 and 81.1 %, respectively (Fig. 6). No significant difference was found in area under the ROC curve between EADC and ADC values by U-test analysis (p > 0.05), which might be due to the correlation between EADC and ADC (EADC = exp[−(b × ADC)]). Renal cell carcinoma with typical performance is not easy to be misdiagnosed as angiomyolipoma. The greatest difference between atypical angiomyolipoma and renal cell carcinoma lies in their different renal parenchymal structures. There was statistical difference in EADC between parenchyma of renal cell carcinoma (0.299 ± 0.086) and the non-fatty part of angiomyolipoma (0.179 ± 0.088) (p < 0.05). Correspondingly, there was statistical difference in ADC between parenchyma of renal cell carcinoma [(1.264 ± 0.271) × 10−3 mm2/s] and the non-fatty part of angiomyolipoma [(1.717 ± 0.431) × 10−3 mm2/s] (p < 0.05) (Fig. 7). Our measurement method is easier to operate and was more suitable for the differential diagnosis in atypical lesions.Fig. 6

Bottom Line: We found renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can be distinguished from angiomyolipoma, and clear cell carcinoma can be distinguished from non-clear cell carcinoma by EADC value.In conclusion, EADC map shows the internal structure of the kidney tumor more intuitively than the ADC map dose, and is also in line with the observation habits of the clinicians.EADC can be used as an effective imaging method for tumor diagnosis.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Imaging, First Affiliated Hospital, Medicine School of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, 710061 Shaanxi People's Republic of China.

ABSTRACT
Exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (EADC) is an indicator of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and reflects the pathological changes of tissues quantitatively. However, no study has been investigated in the space-occupying kidney disease using EADC values. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic role of EADC values at a high magnetic field strength (3.0 T) in kidney neoplastic lesions, compared with that of the ADC values. Ninety patients with suspected renal tumors (including 101 suspected renal lesions) and 20 healthy volunteers were performed MRI scanning. Diffusion-weighted imaging was performed with a single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) sequence at a diffusion gradient of b = 500 s/mm(2). We found renal cell carcinoma (RCC) can be distinguished from angiomyolipoma, and clear cell carcinoma can be distinguished from non-clear cell carcinoma by EADC value. There was significant difference in overall EADC values between renal cell carcinoma (0.150 ± 0.059) and angiomyolipoma (0.270 ± 0.108) when b value was 500 s/mm(2). When receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was higher than 0.192, the sensitivity and specificity of EADC value of renal cell carcinoma were 84.6 and 81.1 %, respectively. In conclusion, EADC map shows the internal structure of the kidney tumor more intuitively than the ADC map dose, and is also in line with the observation habits of the clinicians. EADC can be used as an effective imaging method for tumor diagnosis.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus