Role of diffusion-weighted MRI in the differential diagnosis of endometrioid and non-endometrioid cancer of the uterus
Role of diffusion-weighted MRI in the differential diagnosis of endometrioid and non-endometrioid cancer of the uterus
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/0284185116669873
复制
发表时间：
2017-06-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.3
通讯作者：
Yavuz, Ekrem
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bakir, Vuslat Lale;Bakir, Baris;Yavuz, Ekrem
背景资料：许多出版物研究了表观扩散系数（ADC）值和子宫内膜癌肿瘤分级之间的关系。然而，没有人被设计来评估根据病理组织学类型的类胶质瘤和非类胶质瘤tumors.Purpose：为了评估扩散加权成像（DWI）的作用，在类胶质瘤和非类胶质瘤的子宫癌的鉴别诊断，通过比较它们与对比增强磁共振成像（MRI）findings.Material and Methods：机构审查委员会的批准和知情同意书获得。回顾性分析63例子宫内膜癌患者的MRI表现，并将其分为四组：I、II、III级子宫内膜样肿瘤和非子宫内膜样肿瘤。评估ADC值、DWI比值（B = 1000 s/mm（2））和病灶与子宫肌层之间的增强后信号强度（b 1000 q-Cq值）。采用单因素方差分析、t检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验和受试者工作特征（ROC）分析进行统计学评价。类胶质瘤的平均ADC值为0.86 +/- 0.14，I级为0.80 +/- 0.7，III级为0.71 +/- 0.14，非类胶质瘤为0.70 ± 0.12。I级和III级之间（P = 0.006）和非类胶质瘤之间（P = 0.003）的ADC值有显著差异。在I+II级和III级之间（P = 0.009）和非类胶质瘤之间（P = 0.004）也有显著性差异。类胶质瘤与非类胶质瘤之间差异有统计学意义（P = 0.022）。而当考虑b1000 q（F = 0.640，P = 0.593）和Cq（x（2）= 6.233; P = 0.101）时，各组间ADC值差异无统计学意义。然而，DWI和对比增强结果的差异无统计学意义。此外，在类胶质瘤组中，平均ADC值与肿瘤分级呈负相关。
Background: Many publications have examined the relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and tumor grade in endometrial cancer. Nevertheless, none were designed to evaluate according to the histopathological type of endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors.Purpose: To evaluate the role of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in the differential diagnosis of endometrioid and non-endometrioid cancer of the uterus, by comparing them with contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings.Material and Methods: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. The MRI findings of 63 patients with endometrial cancer were retrospectively evaluated and divided into four groups: Grades I, II, and III endometrioid tumors, and non-endometrioid tumors. ADC values, DWI quotients (b = 1000 s/mm(2)), and post-contrast signal intensities between lesions and the myometrium (b1000q-Cq values) were evaluated. The one-way-ANOVA, student's t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were used for statistical evaluation.Results: Mean ADC values were 0.86 +/- 0.14 in Grade I, 0.80 +/- 0.7 in Grade II, 0.71 +/- 0.14 in Grade III for endometrioid tumors, and 0.70 +/- 0.12 in non-endometrioid tumors. There was a significant difference in ADC values between Grade I and Grade III (P = 0.006), and non-endometrioid tumors (P = 0.003). The difference was also significant between Grades I+II and Grade III (P = 0.009), and non-endometrioid tumors (P = 0.004). Besides, there was a significant difference between endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors (P = 0.022). However, when considering b1000q (F = 0.640, P = 0.593) and Cq (x(2) = 6.233; P = 0.101), no significant difference was detected among the groups.Conclusion: The difference in ADC values between the endometrioid and non-endometrioid tumors was statistically significant. However, the difference in DWI and contrast-enhancement findings were not statistically significant. Furthermore, the mean ADC values had an inverse relationship with tumor grade in the endometrioid cancer group.