Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Is liver lesion characterisation by simplified IVIM DWI also feasible at 3.0 T?

  • Magnetic Resonance
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 21 May 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for liver lesion characterisation at 3.0 T and to compare it with 1.5 T.

Methods

3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence with b = 0, 50, 250, and 800 s/mm2 were analysed in 116 lesions (78 patients) and 27 healthy livers. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM-based parameters D1′ = ADC(50,800), D2′ = ADC(250,800), f1′ = f(0,50,800), f2′ = f(0,250,800), D*′ = D*(0,50,250,800), ADClow = ADC(0,50), and ADCdiff = ADClow-D2′ were calculated voxel-wise and analysed on per-patient basis. Results were compared with those of 173 lesions (110 patients) and 40 healthy livers at 1.5 T.

Results

Focal nodular hyperplasias were best discriminated from all other lesions by f1′ and haemangiomas by D1′ with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.993 and 1.000, respectively. For discrimination between malignant and benign lesions, ADC was best suited (AUC of 0.968). The combination of D1′ and f1′ correctly identified more lesions as malignant or benign than the ADC (99.1% vs 88.8%). Discriminatory power for differentiating malignant from benign lesions tended to be higher at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T.

Conclusion

Simplified IVIM is suitable for lesion characterisation at 3.0 T with a trend of superior diagnostic accuracy for discriminating malignant from benign lesions compared with 1.5 T.

Key Points

• Simplified IVIM is also suitable for liver lesion characterisation at 3.0 T.

• Excellent accuracy was reached for discriminating malignant from benign lesions.

• The acquisition of only three b-values (0, 50, 800 s/mm 2 ) is required.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 21 May 2019

    The original version of this article, published on 08 April 2019, unfortunately contained a mistake. The following correction has therefore been made in the original: The caption of Fig. 2 is wrong. The corrected version is given below.

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

AUC:

Area under the curve

CCC:

Cholangiocellular carcinoma

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

FNH:

Focal nodular hyperplasia

HCC:

Hepatocellular carcinoma

IVIM:

Intravoxel incoherent motion

REF:

Reference tissue

ROI:

Region of interest

References

  1. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Laval-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505

  2. Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR (2011) Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: reality and challenges. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:1351–1361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Takahara T, Kwee TC (2012) Low b-value diffusion-weighted imaging: emerging applications in the body. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1266–1273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Taouli B, Koh DM (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 254:47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Aoyagi T, Shuto K, Okazumi S et al (2012) Apparent diffusion coefficient correlation with oesophageal tumour stroma and angiogenesis. Eur Radiol 22:1172–1177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cho GY, Kim S, Jensen JH et al (2012) A versatile flow phantom for intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Magn Reson Med 67:1710–1720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mürtz P, Sprinkart AM, Reick M et al (2018) Accurate IVIM model-based liver lesion characterisation can be achieved with only three b-value DWI. Eur Radiol 28:4418–4428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wang M, Li X, Zou J et al (2016) Evaluation of hepatic tumors using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI. Med Sci Monit 22:702–709

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Zhu L, Cheng Q, Luo W et al (2015) A comparative study of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion-derived parameters for the characterization of common solid hepatic tumors. Acta Radiol 56:1411–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH et al (2014) Evaluation of hepatic focal lesions using diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion-derived parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:276–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Watanabe H, Kanematsu M, Goshima S et al (2014) Characterizing focal hepatic lesions by free-breathing intravoxel incoherent motion MRI at 3.0 T. Acta Radiol 55:1166–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Colagrande S, Regini F, Pasquinelli F et al (2013) Focal liver lesion classification and characterization in noncirrhotic liver: a prospective comparison of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance–related parameters. J Comput Assist Tomogr 37:560–567

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Doblas S, Wagner M, Leitao HS et al (2013) Determination of malignancy and characterization of hepatic tumor type with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion–derived measurements. Invest Radiol 48:722–728

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Penner A-H, Sprinkart AM, Kukuk GM et al (2013) Intravoxel incoherent motion model-based liver lesion characterisation from three b-value diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur Radiol 23:2773–2783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ichikawa S, Motosugi U, Ichikawa T et al (2013) Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of focal hepatic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1371–1376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Coenegrachts K, Delanote J, Ter Beek L et al (2009) Evaluation of true diffusion, perfusion factor, and apparent diffusion coefficient in non-necrotic liver metastases and uncomplicated liver hemangiomas using black-blood echo planar imaging. Eur J Radiol 69:131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Yamada I, Aung W, Himeno Y et al (1999) Diffusion coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic lesions: evaluation with intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 210:617–623

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Luo M, Zhang L, Jiang X, Zhang W (2017) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging: evaluation of the differentiation of solid hepatic lesions. Transl Oncol 10:831–838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Andreou A, Koh DM, Collins DJ et al (2013) Measurement reproducibility of perfusion fraction and pseudodiffusion coefficient derived by intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging in normal liver and metastases. Eur Radiol 23:428–434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Kakite S, Dyvorne H, Besa C et al (2015) Hepatocellular carcinoma: short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion parameters at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 41:149–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mürtz P, Penner A-H, Pfeiffer A-K et al (2016) Intravoxel incoherent motion model-based analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging with 3 b-values for response assessment in locoregional therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Onco Targets Ther 9:6425–6433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pieper CC, Sprinkart AM, Meyer C et al (2016) Evaluation of a simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis of diffusion-weighted imaging for prediction of tumor size changes and imaging response in breast cancer liver metastases undergoing radioembolization: a retrospective single center analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 95:1–9

  24. Pieper CC, Willinek WA, Meyer C et al (2016) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for prediction of early arterial blood flow stasis in radioembolization of breast cancer liver metastases. J Vasc Interv Radiol 27:1320–1328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pieper C, Meyer C, Sprinkart AM et al (2016) The value of intravoxel incoherent motion model-based diffusion-weighted imaging for outcome prediction in resin-based radioembolization of breast cancer liver metastases. Onco Targets Ther 9:4089–4098

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (2011) Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 53:1020–1022

  27. Lemke A, Laun FB, Simon D et al (2010) An in vivo verification of the intravoxel incoherent motion effect in diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Magn Reson Med 64:1580–1585

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wagner M, Doblas S, Daire JL et al (2012) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for the regional characterization of liver tumors. Radiology 264:464–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mürtz P, Kaschner M, Träber F et al (2012) Diffusion-weighted whole-body MRI with background body signal suppression: technical improvements at 3.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:456–461

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Mürtz P, Kaschner M, Träber F et al (2012) Evaluation of dual-source parallel RF excitation for diffusion-weighted whole-body MR imaging with background body signal suppression at 3.0 T. Eur J Radiol 81:3614–3623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Kukuk GM et al (2010) Dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation body MR imaging compared with standard MR imaging at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience 1. Radiology 256:966–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Chang JM, Lee JM, Lee MW et al (2006) Superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T and 3.0 T imaging for detection of focal malignant liver lesions. Invest Radiol 41:168–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Horie T, Ogino T, Muro I et al (2009) Optimization of fat suppression for 3.0T DWIBS. In: 17th Annual ISMRM Scientific Meeting and Exhibition 2009. pp 4614. Honolulu, Hawaii

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. P. Mürtz and C.C. Pieper contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany

    Petra Mürtz, C. C. Pieper, M. Reick, A. M. Sprinkart, H. H. Schild, W. A. Willinek & G. M. Kukuk

  2. Radiologische Klinik der Universität Bonn, Sigmund-Freud-Straße 25, 53105, Bonn, Germany

    Petra Mürtz

Authors
  1. Petra Mürtz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. C. C. Pieper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Reick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. M. Sprinkart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. H. H. Schild
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. W. A. Willinek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. M. Kukuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Petra Mürtz.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Petra Mürtz.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in Mürtz P, Sprinkart AM, Reick M, et al (2018) Accurate IVIM model-based liver lesion characterisation can be achieved with only three b-value DWI. Eur Radiol. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5401-7.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mürtz, P., Pieper, C.C., Reick, M. et al. Is liver lesion characterisation by simplified IVIM DWI also feasible at 3.0 T?. Eur Radiol 29, 5889–5900 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06192-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06192-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation