Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diffusion kurtosis imaging to assess correlations with clinicopathologic factors for bladder cancer: a comparison between the multi-b value method and the tensor method

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in differentiating low-grade from high-grade tumors and evaluating the aggressiveness of bladder cancer.

Methods

From January 2017 to July 2017, 35 patients (28 males, 7 females; mean age 63 ± 9 years) diagnosed with bladder cancer underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with two types of DKI protocols: (1) multi-b value ranging from 0 to 2000 s/mm2 to obtain mean diffusivity/kurtosis (MDb/MKb) and (2) the tensor method with 32 directions with 3 b values (0, 1000, and 2000s/mm2) to obtain mean/axial/radial diffusivity (MDt/Da/Dr), mean/axial/radial kurtosis (MKt/Ka/Kr), and fractional anisotropy (FA) before radical cystectomy. Comparisons between the low- and high-grade groups, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) were performed with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).

Results

The MKt and Kr values were significantly (p = 0.017 and p = 0.048) higher in patients with high-grade bladder tumors than in those with low-grade tumors. The MKt, Kr, and MKb values were significantly (p = 0.022, p = 0.000, and p = 0.044, respectively) higher in patients with MIBC than in those with NMIBC, while no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in other values. The AUC of Kr (0.883) was the largest and was significantly higher than those of other metrics (all p < 0.05) for differentiating MIBC from NMIBC, with a sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 91.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

Kurtosis metrics performed better than diffusion metrics in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC, and directional kurtosis and Kr metrics may also have great potential in providing additional information regarding bladder cancer invasiveness.

Key Points

• Kurtosis metrics performed better than diffusion metrics in differentiating muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) from non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

• Directional kurtosis can provide additional directional microstructural information regarding bladder cancer invasiveness.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

AUC:

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

CLLS:

Constrained linear least-square

Da:

Axial diffusivity

DKT:

Diffusion kurtosis tensor

Dr.:

Radial diffusivity

DTI:

Diffusion tensor imaging

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

FA:

Fractional anisotropy

ICC:

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Ka:

Axial kurtosis

Kr:

Radial kurtosis

MIBC:

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer

MK:

Mean kurtosis

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

NMIBC:

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

ROC:

Receiver operator characteristic

TUR:

Transurethral resection

References

  1. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300

  2. Rabie E, Faeghi F, Izadpanahi MH, Dayani MA (2016) Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in staging of bladder cancer. J Clin Diagn Res 10:TC01–TC05

  3. Takeuchi M, Sasaki S, Ito M et al (2009) Urinary bladder cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging--accuracy for diagnosing T stage and estimating histologic grade. Radiology 251:112–121

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Spieler B, Melamed J, Taneja SS, Huang WC (2012) High-grade bladder cancer: association of the apparent diffusion coefficient with metastatic disease: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1478–1483

  5. Dağgülli M, Onur MR, Fırdolaş F, Onur R, Kocakoç E, Orhan İ (2011) Role of diffusion MRI and apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in the diagnosis, staging and pathological classification of bladder tumors. Urol Int 87:346–352

  6. Takeuchi M, Sasaki S, Naiki T et al (2013) MR imaging of urinary bladder cancer for T-staging: a review and a pictorial essay of diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1299–1309

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kobayashi S, Koga F, Kajino K et al (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient value reflects invasive and proliferative potential of bladder cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:172–178

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. El-Assmy A, Abou-El-Ghar ME, Refaie HF, Mosbah A, El-Diasty T (2012) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in follow-up of superficial urinary bladder carcinoma after transurethral resection: initial experience. BJU Int 110:E622–E627

  9. Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K (2005) Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 53:1432–1440

  10. Tabesh A, Jensen JH, Ardekani BA, Helpern JA (2011) Estimation of tensors and tensor-derived measures in diffusional kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 65:823–836

  11. Jensen JH, Helpern JA (2010) MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis. NMR Biomed 23:698–710

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. O'Brien T, Cranston D, Fuggle S, Bicknell R, Harris AL (1995) Different angiogenic pathways characterize superficial and invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Res 55:510–513

  13. Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J et al (2012) Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 263:492–501

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tietze A, Hansen MB, Østergaard L et al (2015) Mean diffusional kurtosis in patients with glioma: initial results with a fast imaging method in a clinical setting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1472–1478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. May M, Brookman-Amissah S, Roigas J et al (2010) Prognostic accuracy of individual uropathologists in noninvasive urinary bladder carcinoma: a multicentre study comparing the 1973 and 2004 World Health Organisation classifications. Eur Urol 57:850–858

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nogueira L, Brandão S, Matos E et al (2014) Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 24:1197–1203

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Suo S, Chen X, Wu L et al (2014) Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 32:421–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G et al (2012) Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 264:126–135

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH et al (2015) Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 50:483–489

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Suo S, Chen X, Ji X et al (2015) Investigation of the non-Gaussian water diffusion properties in bladder cancer using diffusion kurtosis imaging: a preliminary study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:281–285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jensen JH, Falangola MF, Hu C et al (2011) Preliminary observations of increased diffusional kurtosis in human brain following recent cerebral infarction. NMR Biomed 24:452–457

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Pentang G, Lanzman RS, Heusch P et al (2014) Diffusion kurtosis imaging of the human kidney: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Imaging 32:413–420

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Veraart J, Poot DH, Van Hecke W et al (2011) More accurate estimation of diffusion tensor parameters using diffusion kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 65:138–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Quentin M, Pentang G, Schimmöller L et al (2014) Feasibility of diffusional kurtosis tensor imaging in prostate MRI for the assessment of prostate cancer: preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging 32:880–885

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Van Camp N, Blockx I, Verhoye M et al (2009) Diffusion tensor imaging in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease after lesioning of the nigrostriatal tract. NMR Biomed 22:697–706

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hui ES, Cheung MM, Qi L, Wu EX (2008) Towards better MR characterization of neural tissues using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis. Neuroimage 42:122–134

  27. Wu G, Zhao Z, Yao Q et al (2018) The study of clear cell renal cell carcinoma with MR diffusion kurtosis tensor imaging and its histopathologic correlation. Acad Radiol 25:430–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Priola AM, Priola SM, Gned D et al (2017) Diffusion-weighted quantitative MRI of pleural abnormalities: intra- and interobserver variability in the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:769–782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Youth Program Nos. 81601487, 81672514).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Fang Wang and Hai-Ge Chen contributed equally to this article.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, No.1630, Dongfang road, Pudong, Shanghai, 200127, China

    Fang Wang, Shuai-Shuai Xu, Guang-Yu Wu & Jian-Rong Xu

  2. Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, School of Medicine, Tongji University, Shanghai, 200065, China

    Fang Wang

  3. Department of Urology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200127, China

    Hai-Ge Chen, Rui-Yun Zhang & Di Jin

Authors
  1. Fang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hai-Ge Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rui-Yun Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Di Jin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Shuai-Shuai Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guang-Yu Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jian-Rong Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Guang-Yu Wu or Jian-Rong Xu.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jian-Rong Xu.

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 obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Study subjects or cohorts overlap have not been published previously and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part.

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

Wang, F., Chen, HG., Zhang, RY. et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging to assess correlations with clinicopathologic factors for bladder cancer: a comparison between the multi-b value method and the tensor method. Eur Radiol 29, 4447–4455 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5977-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5977-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation