Skip to main content

Contribution of mono-exponential, bi-exponential and stretched exponential model-based diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis and differentiation of uterine cervical carcinoma

European Radiology volume 27, pages 2400–2410 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the potential of various metrics derived from mono-exponential model (MEM), bi-exponential model (BEM) and stretched exponential model (SEM)-based diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in diagnosing and differentiating the pathological subtypes and grades of uterine cervical carcinoma.

Methods

71 newly diagnosed patients with cervical carcinoma (50 cases of squamous cell carcinoma [SCC] and 21 cases of adenocarcinoma [AC]) and 32 healthy volunteers received DWI with multiple b values. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure molecular diffusion (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f), water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index (alpha), and distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) were calculated and compared between tumour and normal cervix, among different pathological subtypes and grades.

Results

All of the parameters were significantly lower in cervical carcinoma than normal cervical stroma except alpha. SCC showed lower ADC, D, f and DDC values and higher D* value than AC; D and DDC values of SCC and ADC and D values of AC were lower in the poorly differentiated group than those in the well–moderately differentiated group.

Conclusion

Compared with MEM, diffusion parameters from BEM and SEM may offer additional information in cervical carcinoma diagnosis, predicting pathological tumour subtypes and grades, while f and D showed promising significance.

Key Points

• DWI-derived parameters by different models are related but provide diversified information.

• Commonly used ADC by MEM of DWI overestimates the tissue water diffusivity.

• DWI processed by BEM could separate blood perfusion from true diffusion effects.

• The derived diffusion-related and perfusion-related parameters by BEM are superior to ADC.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Abbreviations

AC:

Adenocarcinoma

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

Alpha:

Water molecular diffusion heterogeneity index

BEM:

Bi-exponential model

D :

Pure molecular diffusion

D* :

Pseudo-diffusion coefficient

DCE-MRI:

Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

DDC:

Distributed diffusion coefficient

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

f :

Perfusion fraction

MEM:

Mono-exponential model

MRI:

Magnetic resonance imaging

SCC:

Squamous cell carcinoma

SEM:

Stretched exponential model

References

  1. Follen M, Levenback CF, Iyer RB et al (2003) Imaging in cervical cancer. Cancer 98:2028–2038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Nicolet V, Carignan L, Bourdon F, Prosmanne O (2000) MR imaging of cervical carcinoma: a practical staging approach. Radiographics 20:1539–1549

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Liu Y, Bai R, Sun H, Liu H, Wang D (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of uterine cervical cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:858–862

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Demirbas T, Cimilli T, Bayramoglu S, Guner NT, Hocaoglu E, Inci E (2014) Contribution of diffusion-weighted imaging to diagnosis and staging of cervical cancer. Balkan Med J 31:154–157

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Payne GS, Schmidt M, Morgan VA et al (2010) Evaluation of magnetic resonance diffusion and spectroscopy measurements as predictive biomarkers in stage 1 cervical cancer. Gynecol Oncol 116:246–252

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Liu Y, Ye Z, Sun H, Bai R (2015) Clinical application of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in uterine cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 25:1073–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuang F, Ren J, Zhong Q, Liyuan F, Huan Y, Chen Z (2013) The value of apparent diffusion coefficient in the assessment of cervical cancer. Eur Radiol 23:1050–1058

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andersen EK, Hole KH, Lund KV et al (2013) Pharmacokinetic parameters derived from dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of cervical cancers predict chemoradiotherapy outcome. Radiother Oncol 107:117–122

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Himoto Y, Fujimoto K, Kido A et al (2014) Assessment of the early predictive power of quantitative magnetic resonance imaging parameters during neoadjuvant chemotherapy for uterine cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 24:751–757

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ellingsen C, Hompland T, Galappathi K, Mathiesen B, Rofstad EK (2014) DCE-MRI of the hypoxic fraction, radioresponsiveness, and metastatic propensity of cervical carcinoma xenografts. Radiother Oncol 110:335–341

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Federau C, O'Brien K, Meuli R, Hagmann P, Maeder P (2014) Measuring brain perfusion with intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM): initial clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:624–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Woo S, Lee JM, Yoon JH, Joo I, Han JK, Choi BI (2014) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with enhancement degree and histologic grade. Radiology 270:758–767

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fujima N, Yoshida D, Sakashita T et al (2014) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: assessment of perfusion-related parameters compared to dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 32:1206–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Bisdas S, Braun C, Skardelly M et al (2014) Correlative assessment of tumor microcirculation using contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI: is there a link between them? NMR Biomed 27:1184–1191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee EY, Hui ES, Chan KK et al (2015) Relationship between intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in tissue perfusion of cervical cancers. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:454–459

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Orton MR, Messiou C, Collins D et al (2016) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of metastatic abdominal and pelvic tumours is sensitive to early changes induced by a VEGF inhibitor using alternative diffusion attenuation models. Eur Radiol 26:1412–1419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jia QJ, Zhang SX, Chen WB et al (2014) Initial experience of correlating parameters of intravoxel incoherent motion and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T in nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Eur Radiol 24:3076–3087

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lemke A, Laun FB, Klauss M et al (2009) Differentiation of pancreas carcinoma from healthy pancreatic tissue using multiple b-values: comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters. Investig Radiol 44:769–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chandarana H, Lee VS, Hecht E, Taouli B, Sigmund EE (2011) Comparison of biexponential and monoexponential model of diffusion weighted imaging in evaluation of renal lesions: preliminary experience. Investig Radiol 46:285–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu C, Liang C, Liu Z, Zhang S, Huang B (2013) Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in evaluation of breast lesions: comparison with conventional DWI. Eur J Radiol 82:e782–e789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee EY, Yu X, Chu MM et al (2014) Perfusion and diffusion characteristics of cervical cancer based on intraxovel incoherent motion MR imaging-a pilot study. Eur Radiol 24:1506–1513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bennett KM, Schmainda KM, Bennett RT, Rowe DB, Lu H, Hyde JS (2003) Characterization of continuously distributed cortical water diffusion rates with a stretched-exponential model. Magn Reson Med 50:727–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bennett KM, Hyde JS, Schmainda KM (2006) Water diffusion heterogeneity index in the human brain is insensitive to the orientation of applied magnetic field gradients. Magn Reson Med 56:235–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bai Y, Lin Y, Tian J et al (2015) Grading of gliomas by using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging and diffusion kurtosis MR imaging. Radiology 278:496–504

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Lai V, Lee VH, Lam KO, Sze HC, Chan Q, Khong PL (2015) Intravoxel water diffusion heterogeneity MR imaging of nasopharyngeal carcinoma using stretched exponential diffusion model. Eur Radiol 25:1708–1713

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Liu X, Zhou L, Peng W, Wang H, Zhang Y (2015) Comparison of stretched-exponential and monoexponential model diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer and normal tissues. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:1078–1085

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Mazaheri Y, Afaq A, Rowe DB, Lu Y, Shukla-Dave A, Grover J (2012) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: improved robustness with stretched exponential modeling. J Comput Assist Tomogr 36:695–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Merisaari H, Toivonen J, Pesola M et al (2015) Diffusion weighted imaging of prostate cancer: effect of b-value distribution on repeatability and cancer characterization. Magn Reson Imaging 33:1212–1218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Winfield JM, deSouza NM, Priest AN et al (2015) Modelling DW-MRI data from primary and metastatic ovarian tumours. Eur Radiol 25:2033–2040

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Merisaari H, Jambor I (2015) Optimization of b-value distribution for four mathematical models of prostate cancer diffusion-weighted imaging using b values up to 2000 s/mm(2): simulation and repeatability study. Magn Reson Med 73:1954–1969

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Matoba M, Tonami H, Kondou T et al (2007) Lung carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging–preliminary evaluation with apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology 243:570–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Kaur H, Silverman PM, Iyer RB, Verschraegen CF, Eifel PJ, Charnsangavej C (2003) Diagnosis, staging, and surveillance of cervical carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180:1621–1631

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Grenier P, Cabanis E, Laval-Jeantet M (1986) MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 161:401–407

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Le Bihan D (2008) Intravoxel incoherent motion perfusion MR imaging: a wake-up call. Radiology 249:748–752

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Shinmoto H, Tamura C, Soga S et al (2012) An intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging study of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 199:W496–W500

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Hockel S, Schlenger K, Vaupel P, Hockel M (2001) Association between host tissue vascularity and the prognostically relevant tumor vascularity in human cervical cancer. Int J Oncol 19:827–832

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shinmoto H, Oshio K, Tanimoto A et al (2009) Biexponential apparent diffusion coefficients in prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 27:355–359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lee SS, Byun JH, Park BJ et al (2008) Quantitative analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas: usefulness in characterizing solid pancreatic masses. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:928–936

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Tokumo K, Kodama J, Seki N et al (1998) Different angiogenic pathways in human cervical cancers. Gynecol Oncol 68:38–44

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Nicolas R, Sibon I, Hiba B (2015) Accuracies and contrasts of models of the diffusion-weighted-dependent attenuation of the MRI signal at intermediate b-values. Magn Reson Insights 8:11–21

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Grech-Sollars M, Hales PW, Miyazaki K et al (2015) Multi-centre reproducibility of diffusion MRI parameters for clinical sequences in the brain. NMR Biomed 28:468–485

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Kwee TC, Galban CJ, Tsien C et al (2010) Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficients and distributed diffusion coefficients in high-grade gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:531–537

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Lai V, Li X, Lee VH et al (2014) Nasopharyngeal carcinoma: comparison of diffusion and perfusion characteristics between different tumour stages using intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Eur Radiol 24:176–183

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Yingkui Zhang and Shikuo Fu (GE healthcare) for his excellent MR technique support, and associate professor Yan Song (Department of Pathology, Cancer Institute & Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences) for helping with the pathological images. The scientific guarantor of this publication is Prof. Chunwu Zhou. All authors of this manuscript state that this work has not received any funding. Author Meng Lin, Xiaoduo Yu, Yan Chen, Han Ouyang and Chunwu Zhou declare no relationships with any companies, while authors Bing Wu and Dandan Zheng were the scientists at GE MR Research China who mainly contributed to the manuscript editing and did not contribute to the design, data collection or analysis/interpretation of this study. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional review board approval was obtained. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study. Study subjects or cohorts have not been previously reported. Methodology: prospective, diagnostic or prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Cancer Institute & Hospital, Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, No17, Panjiayuannanli, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100021, People’s Republic of China

    Meng Lin, Xiaoduo Yu, Yan Chen, Han Ouyang & Chunwu Zhou

  2. GE MR Research China, Beijing, People’s Republic of China

    Bing Wu & Dandan Zheng

Authors
  1. Meng Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xiaoduo Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yan Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Han Ouyang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Bing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Dandan Zheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Chunwu Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Han Ouyang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lin, M., Yu, X., Chen, Y. et al. Contribution of mono-exponential, bi-exponential and stretched exponential model-based diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the diagnosis and differentiation of uterine cervical carcinoma. Eur Radiol 27, 2400–2410 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4596-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4596-8

Keywords

  • Diffusion-weighted imaging
  • Mono-exponential model
  • Bi-exponential model
  • Stretched exponential model
  • Uterine cervical neoplasm