Solid bone tumors of the spine: Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion‐weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard

Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2018-04, Vol.47 (4), p.1034-1042
Hauptverfasser: Pozzi, Grazia, Albano, Domenico, Messina, Carmelo, Angileri, Salvatore Alessio, Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a, Galbusera, Fabio, Luzzati, Alessandro, Perrucchini, Giuseppe, Scotto, Gennaro, Parafioriti, Antonina, Zerbi, Alberto, Sconfienza, Luca Maria
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1042
container_issue 4
container_start_page 1034
container_title Journal of magnetic resonance imaging
container_volume 47
creator Pozzi, Grazia
Albano, Domenico
Messina, Carmelo
Angileri, Salvatore Alessio
Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a
Galbusera, Fabio
Luzzati, Alessandro
Perrucchini, Giuseppe
Scotto, Gennaro
Parafioriti, Antonina
Zerbi, Alberto
Sconfienza, Luca Maria
description Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumors, although some features of benign and malignant cancers may overlap, making the differential diagnosis challenging. Materials and Methods In all, 116 patients (62 males, 54 females; mean age 59.5 ± 14.1) with biopsy‐proven spinal bone tumors were studied. Field strength/sequences: 1.5T MR system; T1‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (repetition time / echo time [TR/TE], 500/13 msec; number of excitations [NEX], 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), T2‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (TR/TE, 4100/102 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), short tau inversion recovery (TR/TE, 4800/89 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm, IT, 140 msec), axial spin‐echo echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) (TR/TE 5200/72 msec; slice thickness 5 mm; field of view, 300; interslice gap, 1.5 mm; NEX, 6; echo‐planar imaging factor, 96; no parallel imaging) with b‐values of 0 and 1000 s/mm², and 3D fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted gradient‐recalled‐echo (TR/TE, 500/13 msec; slice thickness, 4 mm) after administration of 0.2 ml/kg body weight gadolinum‐diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid. Two readers manually drew regions of interest on the solid portion of the lesion (hyperintense on T2‐weighted images, hypointense on T1‐weighted images, and enhanced after gadolinium administration on fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images) to calculate mADC. Histology was used as the reference standard. Tumors were classified into malignant primary tumors (MPT), bone metastases (BM), or benign primary tumors (BPT). Statistical tests: Nonnormality of distribution was tested with the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‐test with Bonferroni correction were used. Sensitivity and specificity of the mADC values for BM, MPT, and BPT were calculated. Approximate receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The mADC values of MPT (n = 35), BM (n = 65), and BPT (n = 16) were 1.00 ± 0.32 (0.59–2.10) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.25 (0.73–1.96) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.31 ± 0.36 (0.83–2.14) × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. The mADC was significantly different between BPT and all malignant lesions (BM+MPT) (P < 0.001), BM and BPT (P 
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jmri.25826
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1924600570</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1924600570</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-89c82558987034a93804aeb263c961e00da4fa64a0dba54b2dff9c5c3bff8cca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhi0Eou3AhgdAltigSim-xBmHHWpLW1SExGUdnTjHMx4ldmonqmbHI_AYPBdPgocZQGLBypfz6Tv2-Ql5xtkZZ0y82gzRnQmlRfWAHHMlRJEP1cO8Z0oWXLPlETlJacMYq-tSPSZHQi-Vkloek--fQu862gaPdJqHEBMNlk5rpGl0Hl_TCwcrH9LkDB0x2hAH8AZ3EIwjRPQT7Zy1c3LBUxPQWmfc7nZASHPEjuaSX_2Ffnz9do9utZ5y6f3Hm0N57dIU-rDaUkgUaESL2Z0bpQl8B7F7Qh5Z6BM-PawL8uXt5efz6-L2w9XN-Zvbwki1rApdGy2U0rVeMllCLTUrAVtRSVNXHBnroLRQlcC6FlTZis7a2igjW2u1MSAX5OXeO8ZwN2OamsElg30PHsOcGl6LsmJMZf2CvPgH3YQ5-vy6RjAudB6xkpk63VMmhpTyx5oxugHituGs2eXX7PJrfuWX4ecH5dwO2P1BfweWAb4H7l2P2_-omnd5uHvpT642qk8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2012855353</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Solid bone tumors of the spine: Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion‐weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard</title><source>Wiley Free Content</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Pozzi, Grazia ; Albano, Domenico ; Messina, Carmelo ; Angileri, Salvatore Alessio ; Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a ; Galbusera, Fabio ; Luzzati, Alessandro ; Perrucchini, Giuseppe ; Scotto, Gennaro ; Parafioriti, Antonina ; Zerbi, Alberto ; Sconfienza, Luca Maria</creator><creatorcontrib>Pozzi, Grazia ; Albano, Domenico ; Messina, Carmelo ; Angileri, Salvatore Alessio ; Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a ; Galbusera, Fabio ; Luzzati, Alessandro ; Perrucchini, Giuseppe ; Scotto, Gennaro ; Parafioriti, Antonina ; Zerbi, Alberto ; Sconfienza, Luca Maria</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumors, although some features of benign and malignant cancers may overlap, making the differential diagnosis challenging. Materials and Methods In all, 116 patients (62 males, 54 females; mean age 59.5 ± 14.1) with biopsy‐proven spinal bone tumors were studied. Field strength/sequences: 1.5T MR system; T1‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (repetition time / echo time [TR/TE], 500/13 msec; number of excitations [NEX], 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), T2‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (TR/TE, 4100/102 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), short tau inversion recovery (TR/TE, 4800/89 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm, IT, 140 msec), axial spin‐echo echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) (TR/TE 5200/72 msec; slice thickness 5 mm; field of view, 300; interslice gap, 1.5 mm; NEX, 6; echo‐planar imaging factor, 96; no parallel imaging) with b‐values of 0 and 1000 s/mm², and 3D fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted gradient‐recalled‐echo (TR/TE, 500/13 msec; slice thickness, 4 mm) after administration of 0.2 ml/kg body weight gadolinum‐diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid. Two readers manually drew regions of interest on the solid portion of the lesion (hyperintense on T2‐weighted images, hypointense on T1‐weighted images, and enhanced after gadolinium administration on fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images) to calculate mADC. Histology was used as the reference standard. Tumors were classified into malignant primary tumors (MPT), bone metastases (BM), or benign primary tumors (BPT). Statistical tests: Nonnormality of distribution was tested with the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‐test with Bonferroni correction were used. Sensitivity and specificity of the mADC values for BM, MPT, and BPT were calculated. Approximate receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The mADC values of MPT (n = 35), BM (n = 65), and BPT (n = 16) were 1.00 ± 0.32 (0.59–2.10) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.25 (0.73–1.96) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.31 ± 0.36 (0.83–2.14) × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. The mADC was significantly different between BPT and all malignant lesions (BM+MPT) (P &lt; 0.001), BM and BPT (P = 0.008), and MPT and BPT (P = 0.008). No difference was found between BM and MPT (P = 0.999). An mADC threshold of 0.952 × 10−3 mm2/s yielded 81.3% sensitivity, 55.0% specificity. Accuracy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.9%–88.1%). Interobserver reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC = 0.916; 95% CI = 0.879–0.942). Conclusion DWI with mADC quantification is a reproducible tool to differentiate benign from malignant solid tumors with 76% accuracy. The mADC values of BPT were statistically higher than that of malignant tumors. However, the large overlap between cases may make mADC not helpful in a specific patient. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1034–1042.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-1807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2586</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25826</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28755383</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; apparent diffusion coefficient ; Benign ; Biopsy ; Body weight ; Bone cancer ; Bone imaging ; Bone tumors ; Confidence intervals ; Correlation coefficient ; Correlation coefficients ; Diagnosis, Differential ; diagnostic performance ; Diagnostic systems ; Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid ; Differential diagnosis ; Diffusion ; Diffusion coefficient ; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Echo-Planar Imaging - methods ; Female ; Females ; Field of view ; Field strength ; Gadolinium ; Histology ; Humans ; Image enhancement ; Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Lesions ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Male ; Males ; Mathematical analysis ; Metastases ; Middle Aged ; NMR ; Nuclear magnetic resonance ; Reference Standards ; Reliability analysis ; Reproducibility ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sequences ; Solid tumors ; Spinal cancer ; Spinal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Spinal Neoplasms - ultrastructure ; Spine ; Spine - diagnostic imaging ; Spine - ultrastructure ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical tests ; Tumors ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2018-04, Vol.47 (4), p.1034-1042</ispartof><rights>2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine</rights><rights>2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.</rights><rights>2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-89c82558987034a93804aeb263c961e00da4fa64a0dba54b2dff9c5c3bff8cca3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-89c82558987034a93804aeb263c961e00da4fa64a0dba54b2dff9c5c3bff8cca3</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-7989-9861 ; 0000-0003-0759-8431</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmri.25826$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmri.25826$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28755383$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pozzi, Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albano, Domenico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Messina, Carmelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angileri, Salvatore Alessio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galbusera, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luzzati, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perrucchini, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scotto, Gennaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parafioriti, Antonina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerbi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sconfienza, Luca Maria</creatorcontrib><title>Solid bone tumors of the spine: Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion‐weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard</title><title>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</title><addtitle>J Magn Reson Imaging</addtitle><description>Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumors, although some features of benign and malignant cancers may overlap, making the differential diagnosis challenging. Materials and Methods In all, 116 patients (62 males, 54 females; mean age 59.5 ± 14.1) with biopsy‐proven spinal bone tumors were studied. Field strength/sequences: 1.5T MR system; T1‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (repetition time / echo time [TR/TE], 500/13 msec; number of excitations [NEX], 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), T2‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (TR/TE, 4100/102 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), short tau inversion recovery (TR/TE, 4800/89 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm, IT, 140 msec), axial spin‐echo echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) (TR/TE 5200/72 msec; slice thickness 5 mm; field of view, 300; interslice gap, 1.5 mm; NEX, 6; echo‐planar imaging factor, 96; no parallel imaging) with b‐values of 0 and 1000 s/mm², and 3D fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted gradient‐recalled‐echo (TR/TE, 500/13 msec; slice thickness, 4 mm) after administration of 0.2 ml/kg body weight gadolinum‐diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid. Two readers manually drew regions of interest on the solid portion of the lesion (hyperintense on T2‐weighted images, hypointense on T1‐weighted images, and enhanced after gadolinium administration on fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images) to calculate mADC. Histology was used as the reference standard. Tumors were classified into malignant primary tumors (MPT), bone metastases (BM), or benign primary tumors (BPT). Statistical tests: Nonnormality of distribution was tested with the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‐test with Bonferroni correction were used. Sensitivity and specificity of the mADC values for BM, MPT, and BPT were calculated. Approximate receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The mADC values of MPT (n = 35), BM (n = 65), and BPT (n = 16) were 1.00 ± 0.32 (0.59–2.10) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.25 (0.73–1.96) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.31 ± 0.36 (0.83–2.14) × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. The mADC was significantly different between BPT and all malignant lesions (BM+MPT) (P &lt; 0.001), BM and BPT (P = 0.008), and MPT and BPT (P = 0.008). No difference was found between BM and MPT (P = 0.999). An mADC threshold of 0.952 × 10−3 mm2/s yielded 81.3% sensitivity, 55.0% specificity. Accuracy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.9%–88.1%). Interobserver reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC = 0.916; 95% CI = 0.879–0.942). Conclusion DWI with mADC quantification is a reproducible tool to differentiate benign from malignant solid tumors with 76% accuracy. The mADC values of BPT were statistically higher than that of malignant tumors. However, the large overlap between cases may make mADC not helpful in a specific patient. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1034–1042.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>apparent diffusion coefficient</subject><subject>Benign</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Body weight</subject><subject>Bone cancer</subject><subject>Bone imaging</subject><subject>Bone tumors</subject><subject>Confidence intervals</subject><subject>Correlation coefficient</subject><subject>Correlation coefficients</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>diagnostic performance</subject><subject>Diagnostic systems</subject><subject>Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid</subject><subject>Differential diagnosis</subject><subject>Diffusion</subject><subject>Diffusion coefficient</subject><subject>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Echo-Planar Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Females</subject><subject>Field of view</subject><subject>Field strength</subject><subject>Gadolinium</subject><subject>Histology</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image enhancement</subject><subject>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Males</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Metastases</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>NMR</subject><subject>Nuclear magnetic resonance</subject><subject>Reference Standards</subject><subject>Reliability analysis</subject><subject>Reproducibility</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sequences</subject><subject>Solid tumors</subject><subject>Spinal cancer</subject><subject>Spinal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Spinal Neoplasms - ultrastructure</subject><subject>Spine</subject><subject>Spine - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Spine - ultrastructure</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical tests</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1053-1807</issn><issn>1522-2586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kctu1DAUhi0Eou3AhgdAltigSim-xBmHHWpLW1SExGUdnTjHMx4ldmonqmbHI_AYPBdPgocZQGLBypfz6Tv2-Ql5xtkZZ0y82gzRnQmlRfWAHHMlRJEP1cO8Z0oWXLPlETlJacMYq-tSPSZHQi-Vkloek--fQu862gaPdJqHEBMNlk5rpGl0Hl_TCwcrH9LkDB0x2hAH8AZ3EIwjRPQT7Zy1c3LBUxPQWmfc7nZASHPEjuaSX_2Ffnz9do9utZ5y6f3Hm0N57dIU-rDaUkgUaESL2Z0bpQl8B7F7Qh5Z6BM-PawL8uXt5efz6-L2w9XN-Zvbwki1rApdGy2U0rVeMllCLTUrAVtRSVNXHBnroLRQlcC6FlTZis7a2igjW2u1MSAX5OXeO8ZwN2OamsElg30PHsOcGl6LsmJMZf2CvPgH3YQ5-vy6RjAudB6xkpk63VMmhpTyx5oxugHituGs2eXX7PJrfuWX4ecH5dwO2P1BfweWAb4H7l2P2_-omnd5uHvpT642qk8</recordid><startdate>201804</startdate><enddate>201804</enddate><creator>Pozzi, Grazia</creator><creator>Albano, Domenico</creator><creator>Messina, Carmelo</creator><creator>Angileri, Salvatore Alessio</creator><creator>Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a</creator><creator>Galbusera, Fabio</creator><creator>Luzzati, Alessandro</creator><creator>Perrucchini, Giuseppe</creator><creator>Scotto, Gennaro</creator><creator>Parafioriti, Antonina</creator><creator>Zerbi, Alberto</creator><creator>Sconfienza, Luca Maria</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7989-9861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0759-8431</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201804</creationdate><title>Solid bone tumors of the spine: Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion‐weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard</title><author>Pozzi, Grazia ; Albano, Domenico ; Messina, Carmelo ; Angileri, Salvatore Alessio ; Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a ; Galbusera, Fabio ; Luzzati, Alessandro ; Perrucchini, Giuseppe ; Scotto, Gennaro ; Parafioriti, Antonina ; Zerbi, Alberto ; Sconfienza, Luca Maria</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3576-89c82558987034a93804aeb263c961e00da4fa64a0dba54b2dff9c5c3bff8cca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>apparent diffusion coefficient</topic><topic>Benign</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Body weight</topic><topic>Bone cancer</topic><topic>Bone imaging</topic><topic>Bone tumors</topic><topic>Confidence intervals</topic><topic>Correlation coefficient</topic><topic>Correlation coefficients</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>diagnostic performance</topic><topic>Diagnostic systems</topic><topic>Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid</topic><topic>Differential diagnosis</topic><topic>Diffusion</topic><topic>Diffusion coefficient</topic><topic>Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Echo-Planar Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Females</topic><topic>Field of view</topic><topic>Field strength</topic><topic>Gadolinium</topic><topic>Histology</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image enhancement</topic><topic>Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Males</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Metastases</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>NMR</topic><topic>Nuclear magnetic resonance</topic><topic>Reference Standards</topic><topic>Reliability analysis</topic><topic>Reproducibility</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sequences</topic><topic>Solid tumors</topic><topic>Spinal cancer</topic><topic>Spinal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Spinal Neoplasms - ultrastructure</topic><topic>Spine</topic><topic>Spine - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Spine - ultrastructure</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical tests</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pozzi, Grazia</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Albano, Domenico</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Messina, Carmelo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angileri, Salvatore Alessio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Galbusera, Fabio</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Luzzati, Alessandro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Perrucchini, Giuseppe</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scotto, Gennaro</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Parafioriti, Antonina</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zerbi, Alberto</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sconfienza, Luca Maria</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pozzi, Grazia</au><au>Albano, Domenico</au><au>Messina, Carmelo</au><au>Angileri, Salvatore Alessio</au><au>Al‐Mnayyis, Asma'a</au><au>Galbusera, Fabio</au><au>Luzzati, Alessandro</au><au>Perrucchini, Giuseppe</au><au>Scotto, Gennaro</au><au>Parafioriti, Antonina</au><au>Zerbi, Alberto</au><au>Sconfienza, Luca Maria</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Solid bone tumors of the spine: Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion‐weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard</atitle><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J Magn Reson Imaging</addtitle><date>2018-04</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>1034</spage><epage>1042</epage><pages>1034-1042</pages><issn>1053-1807</issn><eissn>1522-2586</eissn><abstract>Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of mean apparent diffusion coefficient (mADC) in differentiating benign from malignant bone spine tumors, using histology as a reference standard. Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences have good reliability in evaluating spinal bone tumors, although some features of benign and malignant cancers may overlap, making the differential diagnosis challenging. Materials and Methods In all, 116 patients (62 males, 54 females; mean age 59.5 ± 14.1) with biopsy‐proven spinal bone tumors were studied. Field strength/sequences: 1.5T MR system; T1‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (repetition time / echo time [TR/TE], 500/13 msec; number of excitations [NEX], 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), T2‐weighted turbo spin‐echo (TR/TE, 4100/102 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm), short tau inversion recovery (TR/TE, 4800/89 msec; NEX, 2; slice thickness, 4 mm, IT, 140 msec), axial spin‐echo echo‐planar diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) (TR/TE 5200/72 msec; slice thickness 5 mm; field of view, 300; interslice gap, 1.5 mm; NEX, 6; echo‐planar imaging factor, 96; no parallel imaging) with b‐values of 0 and 1000 s/mm², and 3D fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted gradient‐recalled‐echo (TR/TE, 500/13 msec; slice thickness, 4 mm) after administration of 0.2 ml/kg body weight gadolinum‐diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid. Two readers manually drew regions of interest on the solid portion of the lesion (hyperintense on T2‐weighted images, hypointense on T1‐weighted images, and enhanced after gadolinium administration on fat‐suppressed T1‐weighted images) to calculate mADC. Histology was used as the reference standard. Tumors were classified into malignant primary tumors (MPT), bone metastases (BM), or benign primary tumors (BPT). Statistical tests: Nonnormality of distribution was tested with the Shapiro–Wilk test. The Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U‐test with Bonferroni correction were used. Sensitivity and specificity of the mADC values for BM, MPT, and BPT were calculated. Approximate receiver operating characteristic curves were created. Interobserver reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results The mADC values of MPT (n = 35), BM (n = 65), and BPT (n = 16) were 1.00 ± 0.32 (0.59–2.10) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.25 (0.73–1.96) × 10−3 mm2/s, 1.31 ± 0.36 (0.83–2.14) × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. The mADC was significantly different between BPT and all malignant lesions (BM+MPT) (P &lt; 0.001), BM and BPT (P = 0.008), and MPT and BPT (P = 0.008). No difference was found between BM and MPT (P = 0.999). An mADC threshold of 0.952 × 10−3 mm2/s yielded 81.3% sensitivity, 55.0% specificity. Accuracy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.9%–88.1%). Interobserver reproducibility was almost perfect (ICC = 0.916; 95% CI = 0.879–0.942). Conclusion DWI with mADC quantification is a reproducible tool to differentiate benign from malignant solid tumors with 76% accuracy. The mADC values of BPT were statistically higher than that of malignant tumors. However, the large overlap between cases may make mADC not helpful in a specific patient. Level of Evidence: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1034–1042.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>28755383</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmri.25826</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7989-9861</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0759-8431</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-1807
ispartof Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 2018-04, Vol.47 (4), p.1034-1042
issn 1053-1807
1522-2586
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1924600570
source Wiley Free Content; MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
apparent diffusion coefficient
Benign
Biopsy
Body weight
Bone cancer
Bone imaging
Bone tumors
Confidence intervals
Correlation coefficient
Correlation coefficients
Diagnosis, Differential
diagnostic performance
Diagnostic systems
Diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid
Differential diagnosis
Diffusion
Diffusion coefficient
Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods
Echo-Planar Imaging - methods
Female
Females
Field of view
Field strength
Gadolinium
Histology
Humans
Image enhancement
Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted - methods
Lesions
Magnetic resonance imaging
Male
Males
Mathematical analysis
Metastases
Middle Aged
NMR
Nuclear magnetic resonance
Reference Standards
Reliability analysis
Reproducibility
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sequences
Solid tumors
Spinal cancer
Spinal Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging
Spinal Neoplasms - ultrastructure
Spine
Spine - diagnostic imaging
Spine - ultrastructure
Statistical analysis
Statistical tests
Tumors
Young Adult
title Solid bone tumors of the spine: Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient measured using diffusion‐weighted MRI using histology as a reference standard
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T04%3A50%3A23IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Solid%20bone%20tumors%20of%20the%20spine:%20Diagnostic%20performance%20of%20apparent%20diffusion%20coefficient%20measured%20using%20diffusion%E2%80%90weighted%20MRI%20using%20histology%20as%20a%20reference%20standard&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.au=Pozzi,%20Grazia&rft.date=2018-04&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=1034&rft.epage=1042&rft.pages=1034-1042&rft.issn=1053-1807&rft.eissn=1522-2586&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmri.25826&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1924600570%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2012855353&rft_id=info:pmid/28755383&rfr_iscdi=true