PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) from renal oncocytoma (RO).
METHODS: A total of 48 patients with renal tumours who had undergone DWI and IVIM were divided into two groups-ChRCC (n = 28) and RO (n = 20) groups, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusivity (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and their diagnostic efficacy were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The D* values were higher in the ChRCCs group compared to the RO groups (0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s, P < .05). Moreover, the ADC, D and f values were higher in ROs compared to ChRCCs (0.61 ± 0.08 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.51 ± 0.06 × 10-3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.15 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.86 ± 0.07 × 10-3 mm2/s, 0.41 ± 0.05 vs 0.28 ± 0.02, P < .05). The areas of the ADC, D, D* and f values under the ROC curves in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs were 0.713, 0.839, 0.856 and 0.906, respectively. The cut-off values of ADC, D, D* and f were 0.54, 0.91, 0.013 and 0.31, respectively. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the f values were 0.906, 89.3%, 80.0% and 89.6%, respectively. For pairwise comparisons of ROC curves and diagnostic efficacy, IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs (P = .013, .016, and .008) with f having the highest diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: IVIM parameters presented better performance than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) D* values of ChRCCs were higher, while ADC, D and f values were lower than those of RO tumours. (2) f values had the highest diagnostic efficacy in differentiating ChRCC from RO. (3) IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCC from RO (P=.013, .016, and .008).
METHODS: A total of 48 patients with renal tumours who had undergone DWI and IVIM were divided into two groups-ChRCC (n = 28) and RO (n = 20) groups, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusivity (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and their diagnostic efficacy were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The D* values were higher in the ChRCCs group compared to the RO groups (0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s, P < .05). Moreover, the ADC, D and f values were higher in ROs compared to ChRCCs (0.61 ± 0.08 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.51 ± 0.06 × 10-3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.15 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.86 ± 0.07 × 10-3 mm2/s, 0.41 ± 0.05 vs 0.28 ± 0.02, P < .05). The areas of the ADC, D, D* and f values under the ROC curves in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs were 0.713, 0.839, 0.856 and 0.906, respectively. The cut-off values of ADC, D, D* and f were 0.54, 0.91, 0.013 and 0.31, respectively. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the f values were 0.906, 89.3%, 80.0% and 89.6%, respectively. For pairwise comparisons of ROC curves and diagnostic efficacy, IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs (P = .013, .016, and .008) with f having the highest diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: IVIM parameters presented better performance than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs.
CONCLUSIONS: (1) D* values of ChRCCs were higher, while ADC, D and f values were lower than those of RO tumours. (2) f values had the highest diagnostic efficacy in differentiating ChRCC from RO. (3) IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCC from RO (P=.013, .016, and .008).
摘要：
目的：定量比较常规弥散加权成像（DWI）和体素内不相干运动（IVIM）对肾嫌色细胞癌（ChRCC）和肾嗜酸细胞瘤（RO）的诊断效能。
方法：将48例接受DWI和IVIM的肾脏肿瘤患者分为ChRCC组（n=28）和RO组（n=20）。和表观扩散系数(ADC)，真实扩散系数（D），伪扩散系数(D*)，比较两组的灌注分数(f)及其诊断效能。
结果：与RO组相比，ChRCC组的D*值更高（0.019±0.003mm2/svs.0.008±0.002mm2/s，p<0.05)。此外，ADC,与ChRCC相比，RO中的D和f值较高（0.61±0.08×10-3mm2/s与0.51±0.06×10-3mm2/s,1.02±0.15×10-3mm2/svs.0.86±0.07×10-3mm2/s,0.41±0.05vs.0.28±0.02，p<0.05)。ADC的领域，D,区分ChRCC与RO的ROC曲线下的D*和f值分别为0.713、0.839、0.856和0.906。ADC的截止值,D,D*和f分别为0.54、0.91、0.013和0.31。AUC,灵敏度,f值的特异性和准确性分别为0.906，89.3%，80.0%和89.6%，分别。对于ROC曲线和诊断效能的成对比较，IVIM参数,ie,D,在区分ChRCC与RO(p=0.013、0.016和0.008)方面,D*和f提供了比ADC更好的诊断准确性,其中f具有最高的诊断准确性。
结论：IVIM参数在区分ChRCC和RO方面表现优于ADC。
方法：将48例接受DWI和IVIM的肾脏肿瘤患者分为ChRCC组（n=28）和RO组（n=20）。和表观扩散系数(ADC)，真实扩散系数（D），伪扩散系数(D*)，比较两组的灌注分数(f)及其诊断效能。
结果：与RO组相比，ChRCC组的D*值更高（0.019±0.003mm2/svs.0.008±0.002mm2/s，p<0.05)。此外，ADC,与ChRCC相比，RO中的D和f值较高（0.61±0.08×10-3mm2/s与0.51±0.06×10-3mm2/s,1.02±0.15×10-3mm2/svs.0.86±0.07×10-3mm2/s,0.41±0.05vs.0.28±0.02，p<0.05)。ADC的领域，D,区分ChRCC与RO的ROC曲线下的D*和f值分别为0.713、0.839、0.856和0.906。ADC的截止值,D,D*和f分别为0.54、0.91、0.013和0.31。AUC,灵敏度,f值的特异性和准确性分别为0.906，89.3%，80.0%和89.6%，分别。对于ROC曲线和诊断效能的成对比较，IVIM参数,ie,D,在区分ChRCC与RO(p=0.013、0.016和0.008)方面,D*和f提供了比ADC更好的诊断准确性,其中f具有最高的诊断准确性。
结论：IVIM参数在区分ChRCC和RO方面表现优于ADC。
