Tumor detectability and conspicuity comparison of standard b1000 and ultrahigh b2000 diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal cancer
Tumor detectability and conspicuity comparison of standard b1000 and ultrahigh b2000 diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00261-019-02177-y
复制
发表时间：
2019-11-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Basilico, Raffaella
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pizzi, Andrea Delli;Caposiena, Daniele;Basilico, Raffaella
目的比较标准B=1000 s/mm（2）（b1000）与标准B=2000 s/mm（2）（b2000）扩散加权成像（DWI）对直肠癌的检出率和显示率。对b1000和b2000之间的肿瘤可检测性和显著性进行了比较。分别采用三点法和全肿瘤体积手动勾画法定性和定量评价肿瘤的清晰度。受试者工作特征曲线（ROC）和曲线下面积（AUC）分析提供了再分期MR扫描肿瘤可检测性的诊断准确性。使用Wilcoxon检验比较定性评分和定量特征，包括平均信号强度、方差、第10百分位数和第90百分位数。结果b1000和b2000诊断准确率无显著性差异（p>0.05）; b2000的总体质量评分显著优于b1000（2.29 vs 1.65阅片人1，p=0.01; 2.18 vs 1.69阅片人2，p=0.04）。两个B值的IOA同样良好（k=0.86 b1000，k=0.86 b2000）。定量分析显示b2000在两个健康周围组织中的信号更均匀（以方差测量）（p
Purpose To compare tumor detectability and conspicuity of standard b=1000 s/mm(2) (b1000) versus ultrahigh b=2000 s/mm(2) (b2000) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in rectal cancer.Methods Fifty-five patients for a total of 81 3T DWI-MR scans were retrospectively evaluated by two differently experienced readers. A comparison between b1000 and b2000 for tumor detectability and conspicuity was performed. The conspicuity was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed by using three-point scale and whole tumor volume manual delineation, respectively. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) with area under the curve (AUC) analysis provided diagnostic accuracy in tumor detectability of restaging MR scans. Qualitative scores and quantitative features including mean signal intensity, variance, 10th percentile and 90th percentile, were compared using the Wilcoxon test. Interobserver agreement (IOA) for qualitative and quantitative data was calculated using Cohen's Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) respectively.Results Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between b1000 and b2000 for both readers (p>0.05). Overall quality scores were significantly better for b2000 than b1000 (2.29 vs 1.65 Reader 1, p=0.01; 2.18 vs 1.69 Reader 2, p=0.04). IOA was equally good for both b values (k=0.86 b1000, k=0.86 b2000). Quantitative analysis revealed more uniform signal (measured in variance) of b2000 in both healthy surrounding tissue (p