期刊文献+

IVIM参数与ADC值评估直肠腺癌分化程度的比较 被引量:9

Comparison between IVIM parameters and ADC value in rectal cancer for estimate histological grade
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的评估体素内不相干运动(intravoxel incoherent motion,IVIM)扩散加权成像参数与ADC值在直肠腺癌分化程度中的诊断价值比较。材料与方法回顾性分析93例直肠腺癌患者的影像和病理资料。测量肿瘤的IVIM参数(D、D*、f)和表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficient,ADC)值。采用单因素方差分析比较不同分化程度直肠癌各参数的差异,并用受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线评价各参数的诊断效能。采用Spearman相关分析比较各参数与直肠癌分化程度间的相关性。结果随着直肠腺癌分化程度的降低,ADC值和D值显著性降低(P值分别为0.032和0.000),f值显著性增高(P=0.025)。D值鉴别高/中分化与低分化直肠癌的AUC最高,以2.465×10^-3 mm^2/s为阈值鉴别低分化直肠癌的敏感性和特异性分别为66.7%和79.6%。D值与直肠癌分化程度呈中度相关,ADC值、f值与直肠癌分化程度呈弱相关,相关系数|r|分别为0.441、0.249和0.246(P均<0.05)。结论IVIM参数与ADC值对鉴别不同分化程度的直肠腺癌均有较大的价值,D值的诊断效能更高。 Objective:To compare the value between intravoxel incoherent motion(IVIM)parameters and ADC value in assessing the histological differentiation grade of rectal adenocarcinoma.Materials and Methods:Ninety-three patients of rectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled and were analyzed MR images retrospectively.The parameters from IVIM(D,D*,f)and ADC value were measured.All parameters between different differentiation grade of rectal adenocarcinoma were compared.ROC analysis was used to assess the diagnostic performance in distinguishing well/moderately and poorly differentiated.Spearman correlation analyses were used among the IVIM parameters and histological differentiation grade.Results:There were significant differences in terms of ADC,D and f value between different differentiation grade of rectal adenocarcinoma(P=0.032,0.000,0.025 respectively).D value achieved the highest AUC in distinguishing well/moderately and poorly differentiated,when a cutoff value was 2.465×10^-3 mm^2/s,the sensitivity and specificity were 66.7%and 79.6%.The D value exhibited a moderate relationship with differentiation grade of rectal adenocarcinoma with|r|value of 0.441.The ADC and f value exhibited a poor relationship with differentiation grade,which|r|value were 0.249 and 0.246 respectively(all P<0.05).Conclusions:Both parameters from IVIM and ADC value could be helpful in differentiating histological differentiation grade of rectal adenocarcinoma.D value achieved the better diagnostic performance.
作者 翁晓燕 蒋恒 季立标 陆志华 WENG Xiaoyan;JIANG Heng;JI Libiao;LU Zhihua(Department of Radiology,Affiliated Changshu Hospital of Soochow University,Changshu first people's Hospital,Changshu 215500,China)
出处 《磁共振成像》 CAS 2020年第7期535-539,共5页 Chinese Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
基金 江苏省青年医学重点人才计划(编号:QNRC2016212) 苏州市临床重点病种诊疗计划专项(编号:LCZX201823) 苏州市姑苏卫生人才培养项目(编号:GSWS2019077) 常熟市科技发展计划(编号:CS201624)。
关键词 直肠癌 磁共振成像 体素内不相干运动 rectal cancer magnetic resonance imaging intravoxel incoherent motion
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献47

  • 1张晓鹏,唐磊,孙应实,李洁,曹崑.胃癌MR扩散加权成像扩散敏感因子的选择及其与常规序列的对照研究[J].中华放射学杂志,2007,41(12):1339-1343. 被引量:25
  • 2Caivano R, Rabaseo P, Lotumolo A, et al. Gastric cancer: The role of diffusion weighted imaging in the preoperative staging[J]. Cancer Invest, 2014,32(5) : 184-190. DOI: 10.3109/ 07357907.2014.896014.
  • 3Curvo-Semedo L, Lambregts DM, Maas M, et al. Diffusion- weighted MRI in rectal cancer: apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential noninvasive marker of tumor aggressiveness [J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2012,35 (6) : 1365-1371. DOI : 10.1002/ jmri.23589.
  • 4Miller FH, Hammond N, Siddiqi A J, et al. Utility of diffusion- weighted MRI it/ distinguishing benign and malignant hepatic lesions[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2010,32(1) : 138-147. DOI:10. 1002/jmri.22235.
  • 5Costantini M, Belli P, Rinaldi P, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast cancer: relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumanr aggressiveness[J]. Clin Radiol, 2010,65(12) : 1005-1012. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2010.07.008.
  • 6Liu S, Guan W, Wang H, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value of gastric cancer by diffusion-weighted imaging: correlations with the histological differentiation and Lauren classification[ J]. Eur J Radiol, 2014,83 (12) : 2122-2128. DOI : 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.09.021.
  • 7Adachi Y, Yasuda K, Inomata M, et al. Pathology and prognosis of gastric carcinoma: well versus poorly differentiated type[J]. Cancer, 2000,89(7) : 1418-1424.
  • 8Czyzewska J, Guzinska-Ustymowicz K, Lebelt A, et al. Evaluation of proliferating markers Ki-67, PCNA in gastric cancers [J]. Rocz Akad Med Bialymst, 2004,49 Suppl 1:64- 66.
  • 9Kobayashi S, Koga F, Kajino K, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value reflects invasive and proliferative potential of bladder cancer [J]. J Magn Resort Imaging, 2014,39( 1 ) : 172- 178. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.24148.
  • 10Choi SY, Chang YW, Park H J, et al. Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficiency values on diffusion-weighted imaging with prognostic factors for breast cancer [J]. Br J Radiol, 2012,85 ( 1016) : e474-e479. DOI: 10.1259/bjr/79381464.

共引文献90

同被引文献69

引证文献9

二级引证文献16

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部