Quantitative Evaluation of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging in Assessment of Pathological Grade of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

To evaluate the diagnostic value of intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging parameters for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) grading. A total of 60 patients with pathologically proven ccRCC who underwent intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging were retro...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic radiology 2020-07, Vol.27 (7), p.e176-e182
Hauptverfasser: Ye, Jing, Xu, Qing, Wang, Shou-An, Zheng, Jin, Dou, Wei-Qiang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:To evaluate the diagnostic value of intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging parameters for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) grading. A total of 60 patients with pathologically proven ccRCC who underwent intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging were retrospectively evaluated. The standard apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusivity (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), mean kurtosis (MK), and mean diffusivity (MD) maps were calculated and compared between high-grade and low-grade ccRCC using Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver-operating characteristic analysis was performed for all parameters. ADC, D and MD values were significantly lower for high-grade ccRCC compared to low-grade ccRCC (p < 0.05). MK values were significantly higher in high-grade ccRCC compared to low-grade ccRCC (p < 0.05). However, D* and f were not significantly difference between the two groups (p > 0.05). MD had the largest area under the curve (AUC = 0.888), followed by ADC (AUC = 0.796), D (AUC = 0.780), MK (AUC = 0.736), f (AUC = 0.582), and D*(AUC = 0.533). Diffusion-related parameters (D, ADC, MD, and MK) were able to significantly distinguish between low- and high-grade ccRCC. However, perfusion-related parameters (D* and f) were unable to separate high- and low-grade ccRCC. MD may be the most promising parameter for grading ccRCC in the clinic.
ISSN:1076-6332
1878-4046
DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2019.10.010