DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Utility of Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Imaging-Based Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging for Differentiating Malignant from Benign Masses in Head and Neck Region

  • Ma, Gao (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University) ;
  • Xu, Xiao-Quan (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University) ;
  • Hu, Hao (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University) ;
  • Su, Guo-Yi (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University) ;
  • Shen, Jie (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University) ;
  • Shi, Hai-Bin (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University) ;
  • Wu, Fei-Yun (Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University)
  • Received : 2017.05.22
  • Accepted : 2017.09.28
  • Published : 2018.06.01

Abstract

Objective: To compare the diagnostic performance of readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (RS-EPI)-based diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and that of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for differentiating malignant from benign masses in head and neck region. Materials and Methods: Between December 2014 and April 2016, we retrospectively enrolled 72 consecutive patients with head and neck masses who had undergone RS-EPI-based DKI scan (b value of 0, 500, 1000, and $1500s/mm^2$) for pretreatment evaluation. Imaging data were post-processed by using monoexponential and diffusion kurtosis (DK) model for quantitation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), apparent diffusion for Gaussian distribution ($D_{app}$), and apparent kurtosis coefficient ($K_{app}$). Unpaired t test and Mann-Whitney U test were used to compare differences of quantitative parameters between malignant and benign groups. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were performed to determine and compare the diagnostic ability of quantitative parameters in predicting malignancy. Results: Malignant group demonstrated significantly lower ADC ($0.754{\pm}0.167$ vs. $1.222{\pm}0.420$, p < 0.001) and $D_{app}$ ($1.029{\pm}0.226$ vs. $1.640{\pm}0.445$, p < 0.001) while higher $K_{app}$ ($1.344{\pm}0.309$ vs. $0.715{\pm}0.249$, p < 0.001) than benign group. Using a combination of $D_{app}$ and $K_{app}$ as diagnostic index, significantly better differentiating performance was achieved than using ADC alone (area under curve: 0.956 vs. 0.876, p = 0.042). Conclusion: Compared to DWI, DKI could provide additional data related to tumor heterogeneity with significantly better differentiating performance. Its derived quantitative metrics could serve as a promising imaging biomarker for differentiating malignant from benign masses in head and neck region.

Keywords

References

  1. Lewis-Jones H, Colley S, Gibson D. Imaging in head and neck cancer: United Kingdom national multidisciplinary guidelines. J Laryngol Otol 2016;130:S28-S31
  2. Wippold FJ 2nd. Head and neck imaging: the role of CT and MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25:453-465
  3. Serifog lu I, Oz II, Damar M, Tokgoz O, Yazgan O, Erdem Z. Diffusion-weighted imaging in the head and neck region: usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient values for characterization of lesions. Diagn Interv Radiol 2015;21:208-214 https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2014.14279
  4. Schafer J, Srinivasan A, Mukherji S. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in the head and neck. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2011;19:55-67 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2010.10.002
  5. Srinivasan A, Dvorak R, Perni K, Rohrer S, Mukherji SK. Differentiation of benign and malignant pathology in the head and neck using 3T apparent diffusion coefficient values: early experience. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2008;29:40-44 https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A0743
  6. Ginat DT, Mangla R, Yeaney G, Johnson M, Ekholm S. Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign from malignant skull lesions and correlation with cell density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:W597-W601 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7424
  7. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F, King AD. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the head and neck. Radiology 2012;263:19-32 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11101821
  8. Xu XQ, Hu H, Su GY, Liu H, Hong XN, Shi HB, et al. Utility of histogram analysis of ADC maps for differentiating orbital tumors. Diagn Interv Radiol 2016;22:161-167 https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2015.15202
  9. Jensen JH, Helpern JA. MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis. NMR Biomed 2010;23:698-710 https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.1518
  10. Sun K, Chen X, Chai W, Fei X, Fu C, Yan X, et al. Breast cancer: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging-diagnostic accuracy and correlation with clinical-pathologic factors. Radiology 2015;277:46-55 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15141625
  11. Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E, Nunes RG, Loureiro J, Ramos I, et al. Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 2014;24:1197-1203 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3146-5
  12. Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Winnick A, Niver BE, Spieler B, Morgan GR, et al. Assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma using apparent diffusion coefficient and diffusion kurtosis indices: preliminary experience in fresh liver explants. Magn Reson Imaging 2012;30:1534-1540 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2012.04.020
  13. Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G, Babb JS, Mussi TC, Melamed J, et al. Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 2012;264:126-135 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112290
  14. Yuan J, Yeung DK, Mok GS, Bhatia KS, Wang YX, Ahuja AT, et al. Non-gaussian analysis of diffusion weighted imaging in head and neck at 3T: a pilot study in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. PLoS One 2014;9:e87024 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087024
  15. Jansen JF, Stambuk HE, Koutcher JA, Shukla-Dave A. Nongaussian analysis of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: a feasibility study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2010;31:741-748 https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A1919
  16. Chen Y, Ren W, Zheng D, Zhong J, Liu X, Yue Q, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging predicts neoadjuvant chemotherapy responses within 4 days in advanced nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015;42:1354-1361 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24910
  17. Sakamoto J, Kuribayashi A, Kotaki S, Fujikura M, Nakamura S, Kurabayashi T. Application of diffusion kurtosis imaging to odontogenic lesions: analysis of the cystic component. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:1565-1571 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25307
  18. Xu XQ, Liu J, Hu H, Su GY, Zhang YD, Shi HB, et al. Improve the image quality of orbital 3 T diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with readout-segmented echo-planar imaging. Clin Imaging 2016;40:793-796 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.03.002
  19. Koyasu S, Iima M, Umeoka S, Morisawa N, Porter DA, Ito J, et al. The clinical utility of reduced-distortion readoutsegmented echo-planar imaging in the head and neck region: initial experience. Eur Radiol 2014;24:3088-3096 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3369-5
  20. Yuan M, Zhang YD, Zhu C, Yu TF, Shi HB, Shi ZF, et al. Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusionweighted MR imaging with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating lung cancer from benign solitary pulmonary lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:669-679 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25018
  21. DeLong ER, DeLong DM, Clarke-Pearson DL. Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. Biometrics 1988;44:837-845 https://doi.org/10.2307/2531595
  22. Jiang JX, Tang ZH, Zhong YF, Qiang JW. Diffusion kurtosis imaging for differentiating between the benign and malignant sinonasal lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:1446-1454 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25500
  23. Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH, Fenchel M, Hadaschik BA, Laun FB, et al. Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 2015;50:483-489 https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000155
  24. Jiang R, Jiang J, Zhao L, Zhang J, Zhang S, Yao Y, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging can efficiently assess the glioma grade and cellular proliferation. Oncotarget 2015;6:42380-42393 https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.5675
  25. Iima M, Yano K, Kataoka M, Umehana M, Murata K, Kanao S, et al. Quantitative non-gaussian diffusion and intravoxel incoherent motion magnetic resonance imaging: differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Invest Radiol 2015;50:205-211 https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000094
  26. Yu J, Huang DY, Li Y, Dai X, Shi HB. Correlation of standard diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging with distant metastases of rectal carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44:221-229 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25137
  27. Zhao M, Liu Z, Sha Y, Wang S, Ye X, Pan Y, et al. Readoutsegmented echo-planar imaging in the evaluation of sinonasal lesions: a comprehensive comparison of image quality in single-shot echo-planar imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2016;34:166-172 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mri.2015.10.010
  28. Bogner W, Pinker-Domenig K, Bickel H, Chmelik M, Weber M, Helbich TH, et al. Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging improves the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR breast examinations at 3.0 T. Radiology 2012;263:64-76 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111494

Cited by

  1. Diffusional kurtosis imaging in head and neck cancer: On the use of trace‐weighted images to estimate indices of non‐Gaussian water diffusion vol.45, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.13238
  2. Application of magnetic resonance diffusion kurtosis imaging for distinguishing histopathologic subtypes and grades of rectal carcinoma vol.19, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-019-0192-x
  3. Quantitative Analysis of DCE-MRI and RESOLVE-DWI for Differentiating Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma from Nasopharyngeal Lymphoid Hyperplasia vol.44, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10916-020-01549-y
  4. Utility of a diffusion kurtosis model in the differential diagnosis of orofacial tumours vol.75, pp.7, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2020.01.008
  5. T2 mapping histogram at extraocular muscles for predicting the response to glucocorticoid therapy in patients with thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy vol.76, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2020.09.005
  6. Application of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Head and Neck Lesions vol.55, pp.2, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27885
  7. Role of MR Imaging in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma vol.30, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2021.08.001