A comparative study of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion-derived parameters for the characterization of common solid hepatic tumors

• Published in: Acta radiologica (1987) 2015-12, Vol.56 (12), p.1411-1418
• Main Authors: Zhu, Liuhong, Cheng, Qihua, Luo, Wenbin, Bao, Lijun, Guo, Gang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Diagnostic systems; Diffusion; Diffusion coefficient; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging; Female; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; Liver; Liver - pathology; Liver Neoplasms - pathology; Male; Mathematical models; Motion; Receivers; Reproducibility of Results; ROC Curve; Sensitivity and Specificity; Students; Tumors; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0284-1851; 1600-0455
• DOI: 10.1177/0284185114559426

Background The performance of diffusion-weighted imaging parameters for characterizing hepatic tumors is controversial. Purpose To compare the performances of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters, including the pure diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f), in the characterization of common solid hepatic tumors. Material and Methods Twelve healthy volunteers and 43 patients underwent free-breath diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) of the liver using eight b values (10–800 s/mm2). Twelve regions of interest (ROIs) of normal liver tissue in healthy volunteers and 49 hepatic lesions (23 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs], 16 hemangiomas, and 10 metastases) were measured. Conventional ADC(0,500) and ADCtotal obtained by the mono-exponential model, as well as D, D*, and f were calculated. Student t-tests and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were also performed. Results ADC(0,500), ADCtotal, and D were significantly lower in the malignant group ([1.48 ± 0.35] × 10−3 mm2/s; [1.35 ± 0.30] × 10−3 mm2/s; [1.18 ± 0.33] × 10−3 mm2/s) compared to the hemangioma group ([2.74 ± 1.03] × 10−3 mm2/s; [2.61 ± 0.81] × 10−3 mm2/s; [1.97 ± 0.79] × 10−3 mm2/s]. D* did not differ among multiple comparisons. For the area under the ROC curve (AUC-ROC), the maximum value was attained with ADCtotal (0.983) and was closely followed by ADC(0,500) (0.967), with lower values obtained for D (0.837), f (0.649), and D* (0.599). Statistically significant differences were found between the AUC-ROC of both ADCs (ADCtotal and ADC(0,500)) and D. There was no statistically significant difference between the AUC-ROC of ADCtotal and ADC(0,500). Conclusion ADCs showed superior diagnostic performance compared to IVIM-derived parameters in detecting differences between the malignant group and hemangioma group.