European Radiology

, Volume 27, Issue 12, pp 5309–5315 | Cite as

Apparent diffusion coefficient maps obtained from high b value diffusion-weighted imaging in the preoperative evaluation of gliomas at 3T: comparison with standard b value diffusion-weighted imaging

  • Qiang Zeng
  • Fei Dong
  • Feina Shi
  • Chenhan Ling
  • Biao Jiang
  • Jianmin Zhang
Magnetic Resonance



To assess whether ADC maps obtained from high b value DWI were more valuable in preoperatively evaluating the grade, Ki-67 index and outcome of gliomas.


Sixty-three patients with gliomas, who underwent preoperative multi b value DWI at 3 T, were enrolled. The ADC1000, ADC2000 and ADC3000 maps were generated. Receiver operating characteristic analyses were conducted to determine the area under the curve (AUC) in differentiating high-grade gliomas (HGG) from low-grade gliomas (LGG). Pearson correlation coefficients (R value) were calculated to investigate the correlation between parameters with the Ki-67 proliferation index. Survival analysis was conducted by using Cox regression.


The AUC of the mean ADC1000 value (0.820) was lower than that of the mean ADC2000 value (0.847) and mean ADC3000 value (0.875) in differentiating HGG from LGG. The R value of the mean ADC1000 value (−0.499) was less negative than that of the mean ADC2000 value (−0.530) and mean ADC3000 value (−0.567). The mean ADC3000 value was an independent prognosis factor for gliomas (p = 0.008), while the mean ADC1000 and ADC2000 values were not.


ADC maps obtained from high b value DWI might be a better imaging biomarker in the preoperative evaluation of gliomas.

Key Points

ADC 3000 maps could improve the differentiation between HGG and LGG.

The mean ADC 3000 value had a closer correlation with the Ki-67 index.

The mean ADC 3000 value was an independent prognosis factor for gliomas.


Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Glioma Neoplasm grading Ki-67 antigen Prognosis 



Apparent diffusion coefficient


Area under the curve


Diffusion-weighted imaging


High-grade gliomas


Low-grade gliomas


Number of scan averages


Receiver operating characteristic


Region of interest


Signal-to-noise ratio


Compliance with ethical standards


The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jianmin Zhang.

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.


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

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.



•diagnostic or prognostic study

•performed at one institution


  1. 1.
    Schwartzbaum JA, Fisher JL, Aldape KD, Wrensch M (2006) Epidemiology and molecular pathology of glioma. Nat Clin Pract Neurol 2:494–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Weller M, van den Bent M, Hopkins K et al (2014) EANO guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of anaplastic gliomas and glioblastoma. Lancet Oncol 15:e395–e403CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Soffietti R, Baumert BG, Bello L et al (2010) Guidelines on management of low-grade gliomas: report of an EFNS–EANO Task Force. Eur J Neurol 17:1124–1133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murakami R, Hirai T, Kitajima M et al (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging of pilocytic astrocytomas: usefulness of the minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value for differentiation from high-grade gliomas. Acta Radiol 49:462–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bai Y, Lin Y, Tian J et al (2016) Grading of gliomas by using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion-weighted MR imaging and diffusion kurtosis MR imaging. Radiology 278:496–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Higano S, Yun X, Kumabe T et al (2006) Malignant astrocytic tumors: clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 241:839–846CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zulfiqar M, Yousem DM, Lai H (2013) ADC values and prognosis of malignant astrocytomas: does lower ADC predict a worse prognosis independent of grade of tumor?—A meta-analysis. AJNR Am Neuroradiol 200:624–629Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Server A, Kulle B, Gadmar ØB et al (2011) Measurements of diagnostic examination performance using quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient and proton MR spectroscopic imaging in the preoperative evaluation of tumor grade in cerebral gliomas. Eur J Radiol 80:462–470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Doskaliyev A, Yamasaki F, Ohtaki M et al (2012) Lymphomas and glioblastomas: Differences in the apparent diffusion coefficient evaluated with high b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3T. Eur J Radiol 81:339–344CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kitajima K, Takahashi S, Ueno Y et al (2012) Clinical utility of apparent diffusion coefficient values obtained using high b-value when diagnosing prostate cancer using 3 tesla MRI: Comparison between ultra-high b-value (2000 s/mm2) and standard high b-value (1000 s/mm2). J Magn Reson Imaging 36:198–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han C, Huang S, Guo J et al (2015) Use of a high b-value for diffusion weighted imaging of peritumoral regions to differentiate high-grade gliomas and solitary metastases. J Magn Reson Imaging 42:80–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang K, Shen Y, Zhang X et al (2016) Predicting prostate biopsy outcomes: a preliminary investigation on screening with ultrahigh b-value diffusion-weighted imaging as an innovative diagnostic biomarker. PLoS One 11, e0151176CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hyare H, Thornton J, Stevens J et al (2010) High-b-value diffusion MR imaging and basal nuclei apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in variant and sporadic Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. AJNR Am Neuroradiol 31:521–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cihangiroglu M, Citci B, Kilickesmez O et al (2011) The utility of high b-value DWI in evaluation of ischemic stroke at 3T. Eur J Radiol 78:75–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yamasaki F, Kurisu K, Aoki T et al (2012) Advantages of high b-value diffusion-weighted imaging to diagnose pseudo-responses in patients with recurrent glioma after bevacizumab treatment. Eur J Radiol 81:2805–2810CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chu HH, Choi SH, Ryoo I et al (2013) Differentiation of true progression from pseudoprogression in glioblastoma treated with radiation therapy and concomitant temozolomide: comparison study of standard and high-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiology 269:831–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang Y, Choi SH, Kim Y-J et al (2011) Gliomas: histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps with standard- or high-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging–correlation with tumor grade. Radiology 261:882–890CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hu Y-C, Yan L-F, Sun Q et al. (2016) Comparison between ultra-high and conventional mono b-value DWI for preoperative glioma grading. Oncotarget. 10.18632/oncotarget.14180Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jain R, Poisson LM, Gutman D et al (2014) Outcome prediction in patients with glioblastoma by using imaging, clinical, and genomic biomarkers: focus on the nonenhancing component of the tumor. Radiology 272:484–493CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB et al (2007) Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26:375–385CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mardor Y, Roth Y, Ocherashvilli A et al (2004) Pretreatment prediction of brain tumors response to radiation therapy using high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI. Neoplasia 6:136–142CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Seo HS, Chang KH, Na DG et al (2008) High b-value diffusion (b = 3000 s/mm2) MR imaging in cerebral gliomas at 3T: visual and quantitative comparisons with b = 1000 s/mm2. AJNR Am Neuroradiol 29:458–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Han H, Han C, Wu X et al (2017) Preoperative grading of supratentorial nonenhancing gliomas by high b-value diffusion-weighted 3 T magnetic resonance imaging. J Neurooncol 79:1–8Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Cihangiroglu MM, Ozturk-Isik E, Firat Z et al (2017) Preoperative grading of supratentorial gliomas using high or standard b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3T. Diagn Interv Imaging 98:261–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sunwoo L, Choi SH, Park C-K et al (2013) Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient values measured by diffusion MRI and MGMT promoter methylation semiquantitatively analyzed with MS-MLPA in patients with glioblastoma multiforme. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:351–358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Qiang Zeng
    • 1
  • Fei Dong
    • 2
  • Feina Shi
    • 3
  • Chenhan Ling
    • 1
  • Biao Jiang
    • 2
  • Jianmin Zhang
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of NeurosurgerySecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Department of RadiologySecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Department of NeurologySecond Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of MedicineHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations