Comparison of reduced field-of-view DWI and full field-of view DWI for the differentiation between non-muscle invasive bladder cancer and muscle invasive bladder cancer using VI-RADS

To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence....

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2022-07, Vol.17 (7), p.e0271470-e0271470
Hauptverfasser: Juri, Hiroshi, Higashiyama, Akira, Yamamoto, Kiyohito, Narumi, Yoshifumi, Azuma, Haruhito, Yamamoto, Kazuhiro, Osuga, Keigo
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To evaluate whether reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI sequence improves the differentiation between non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) using VI-RADS. Eighty-nine patients underwent bladder MRI with full field-of-view (fFOV) DWI and rFOV DWI sequence. Images were independently evaluated by 2 radiologists. The sensitivities, specificities, accuracies, and areas under the curve (AUCs) for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC with fFOV DWI and with rFOV DWI sequence were calculated using VI-RADS. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC) values were measured for each patient and averaged. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and AUC by reader 1 were 92%, 78%, 82% and 0.905 with fFOV DWI, and 92%, 86%, 88% and 0.916 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and AUC by reader 2 were 96%, 76%, 82% and 0.900 with conventional DWI, and 96%, 81%, 85% and 0.907 with rFOV DWI sequence, respectively. The specificity and accuracy of reader 1 were significantly better with rFOV DWI sequence than with fFOV DWI, in contrast there was no significant difference for the others. The average of ADC values of fFOV DWI and rFOV DWI sequence were 1.004x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s and 1.003x10.sup.-6 mm.sup.2 /s, respectively. The diagnostic ability of rFOV DWI sequence may be better than that of fFOV DWI using VI-RADS for the differentiation between NMIBC and MIBC regardless of image-reading experience, it is controversial.
ISSN:1932-6203
1932-6203
DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0271470