Differentiation between malignant and benign musculoskeletal tumors using diffusion kurtosis imaging
- 181 Downloads
The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in parameters of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADCmin) between benign and malignant musculoskeletal tumors.
Materials and methods
In this prospective study, 43 patients were scanned using a DKI protocol on a 3-T MR scanner. Eligibility criteria were: non-fatty, non-cystic soft tissue or osteolytic tumors; > 2 cm; location in the retroperitoneum, pelvis, leg, or neck; and no prior treatment. They were clinically or histologically diagnosed as benign (n = 27) or malignant (n = 16). In the DKI protocol, diffusion-weighted imaging was performed using four b values (0-2000 s/mm2) and 21 diffusion directions. Mean kurtosis (MK) values were calculated on the MR console. A recently developed software application enabling reliable calculation was used for DKI analysis.
MK showed a strong correction with ADCmin (Spearman’s rs = 0.95). Both MK and ADCmin values differed between benign and malignant tumors (p < 0.01). For benign and malignant tumors, the mean MK values (± SD) were 0.49 ± 0.17 and 1.14 ± 0.30, respectively, and ADCmin values were 1.54 ± 0.47 and 0.49 ± 0.17 × 10−3 mm2/s, respectively. At cutoffs of MK = 0.81 and ADCmin = 0.77 × 10−3 mm2/s, the specificity and sensitivity for diagnosis of malignant tumors were 96.3 and 93.8% for MK and 96.3 and 93.8% for ADCmin, respectively. The areas under the curve were 0.97 and 0.99 for MK and ADCmin, respectively (p = 0.31).
MK and ADCmin showed high diagnostic accuracy and strong correlation, reflecting the accuracy of MK. However, no clear added value of DKI could be demonstrated in differentiating musculoskeletal tumors.
KeywordsDiffusion kurtosis imaging Diffusion weighted imaging Musculoskeletal tumor MR imaging Differentiation
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
There are no financial or other conflicts of interest in relation to this paper.
- 11.Hu F, Tang W, Sun Y, Wan D, Cai S, Zhang Z, et al. The value of diffusion kurtosis imaging in assessing pathological complete response to neoadjuvant chemoradiation therapy in rectal cancer: a comparison with conventional diffusion-weighted imaging. Oncotarget. 2017.Google Scholar
- 15.Yokosawa S, Ochi S, Bito Y, Ito K, Sasaki M. Robust estimation with suppressed image blurring for diffusion kurtosis imaging using selective spatial smoothing filter. Proc Intl Soc Magn Reson Med. 2014;2581.Google Scholar
- 16.Motulsky H. Appropriate simple size. In: Motulsky H, editor. Trans intuitive biostatics. Tokyo: Science Medical; 1997. p. 196–205.Google Scholar
- 17.Oka K, Yakushiji T, Sato H, Hirai T, Yamashita Y, Mizuta H. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring the chemotherapeutic response of osteosarcoma: a comparison between average apparent diffusion coefficient and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. Skelet Radiol. 2010;39(2):141–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar