Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Histopathological graded liver lesions: what role does the IVIM analysis method have?

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

This study aims to investigate three different image processing methods on quantitative parameters of IVIM sequence, as well as apparent diffusion coefficients and simple perfusion fractions, for benign and malignant liver tumors.

Materials and methods

IVIM images with 8 b-values (0–1000 s/mm2) and 1.5 T MRI scanner in 16 patients and 3 healthy people were obtained. Next, the regions of interest were selected for malignant, benign, and healthy liver regions (50, 56, and 12, respectively). Then, the bi-exponential equation of the IVIM technique was fitted with two segmented fitting methods as well as one full fitting method (three methods in total). Using the segmented fitting method, diffusion coefficient (D) is fixed with a mono-exponential equation with b-values that are greater than 200 s/mm2. The perfusion fraction (f) can then be calculated by extrapolating, as the first method, or fitting simultaneously with the pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*) as the second method. In the full fitting method, as the third method, all IVIM parameters were obtained simultaneously. The mean values of parameters from different methods were compared in different grades of lesions.

Results

Our results indicate that the image processing method can change statistical comparisons between different groups for each parameter. The D value is the only quantity in this technique that does not depend on the fitting process and can be used as an indicator of comparison between studies (P < 0.05). The most effective method to distinguish liver lesions is the extrapolated f method (first method). This method created a significant difference (P < 0.05) between the perfusion parameters between benign and malignant lesions.

Conclusion

Using extrapolated f is the most effective method of distinguishing liver lesions using IVIM parameters. The comparison between groups does not depend on the fitting method only for parameter D.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Ni P, Lin Y, Zhong Q, Chen Z, Sandrasegaran K, Lin C (2016) Technical advancements and protocol optimization of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in liver. Abdom Radiol 41:189–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Wang YXJ, Huang H, Zheng C-J, Xiao B-H, Chevallier O, Wang W (2021) Diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver: challenges and some solutions for the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 11:107

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Chandarana H, Taouli B (2010) Diffusion and perfusion imaging of the liver. Eur J Radiol 76:348–358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kanematsu M, Goshima S, Watanabe H, Kondo H, Kawada H, Noda Y et al (2012) Diffusion perfusion MR imaging of the liver: practice, challenges, and future. Magn Reson Med Sci 11:151–161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stocker D, Hectors S, Bane O, Vietti-Violi N, Said D, Kennedy P et al (2021) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI perfusion quantification in hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine. Eur Radiol 31:9306–9315

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Xu P-J, Yan F-H, Wang J-H, Shan Y, Ji Y, Chen C-Z (2010) Contribution of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the characterization of hepatocellular carcinomas and dysplastic nodules in cirrhotic liver. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:506–512

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Le Bihan D (2019) What can we see with IVIM MRI? Neuroimage 187:56–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Zhu L, Cheng Q, Luo W, Bao L, Guo G (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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Ying ML, Xiao WW, Xu SL, Shu JE, Pan JF, Fu JF et al (2016) Value of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant hepatic lesions and blood perfusion evaluation. Zhonghua Gan Zang Bing Za Zhi = Zhonghua Ganzangbing Zazhi = Chinese J Hepatol 24:840–845

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Iima M (2021) Perfusion-driven Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) MRI in oncology: applications, challenges, and future trends. Magn Reson Med Sci 20:125

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Shen N, Zhao L, Jiang J, Jiang R, Su C, Zhang S et al (2016) Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging analysis of diffusion and microperfusion in grading gliomas and comparison with arterial spin labeling for evaluation of tumor perfusion. J Magn Reson Imaging 44:620–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Doblas S, Wagner M, Leitao HS, Daire J-L, Sinkus R, Vilgrain V 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang X, Chen X-Z, Shi L, Dai J-P (2019) Glioma grading and IDH1 mutational status: assessment by intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Clin Radiol 74:651.e7-651.e14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. 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  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Luo M, Zhang L, Jiang X-H, Zhang W-D (2017) Intravoxel incoherent motion: application in differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma and focal nodular hyperplasia. Diagnostic Interv Radiol 23:263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Tosun M, Onal T, Uslu H, Alparslan B, Çetin AS (2020) Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging for diagnosing and staging the liver fibrosis and inflammation. Abdom Radiol 45:15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Cui Y, Li C, Liu Y, Jiang Y, Yu L, Liu M et al (2020) Differentiation of prostate cancer and benign prostatic hyperplasia: comparisons of the histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion and monoexponential model with in-bore MR-guided biopsy as pathological reference. Abdom Radiol 45:3265–3277

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Klauss M, Mayer P, Maier-Hein K, Laun FB, Mehrabi A, Kauczor H-U et al (2016) IVIM-diffusion-MRI for the differentiation of solid benign and malign hypervascular liver lesions—evaluation with two different MR scanners. Eur J Radiol 85:1289–1294

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chevallier O, Zhou N, Cercueil J, He J, Loffroy R, Wáng YXJ (2019) Comparison of tri-exponential decay versus bi-exponential decay and full fitting versus segmented fitting for modeling liver intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI. NMR Biomed 32:e4155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wurnig MC, Donati OF, Ulbrich E, Filli L, Kenkel D, Thoeny HC et al (2015) Systematic analysis of the intravoxel incoherent motion threshold separating perfusion and diffusion effects: proposal of a standardized algorithm. Magn Reson Med 74:1414–1422

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Li YT, Cercueil J-P, Yuan J, Chen W, Loffroy R, Wáng YXJ (2017) Liver intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) magnetic resonance imaging: a comprehensive review of published data on normal values and applications for fibrosis and tumor evaluation. Quant Imaging Med Surg 7:59

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Heiken JP (2007) Distinguishing benign from malignant liver tumours. Cancer Imaging 7:S1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Huang H, Zheng C, Wang L, Che-Nordin N, Wáng YXJ (2021) Age and gender dependence of liver diffusion parameters and the possibility that intravoxel incoherent motion modeling of the perfusion component is constrained by the diffusion component. NMR Biomed 34:e4449

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH, Kiefer B, Han JK, Choi BI (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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wang M, Li X, Zou J, Chen X, Chen S, Xiang W (2016) Evaluation of hepatic tumors using intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI. Med Sci Monit Int Med J Exp Clin Res 22:702

    Google Scholar 

  27. Namimoto T, Nakagawa M, Kizaki Y, Itatani R, Kidoh M, Utsunomiya D et al (2015) Characterization of liver tumors by diffusion-weighted imaging: comparison of diagnostic performance using the mean and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:453–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wang X, Cao M, Chen H, Ge J, Suo S, Zhou Y (2020) Simplified perfusion fraction from diffusion-weighted imaging in preoperative prediction of IDH1 mutation in WHO grade II–III gliomas: comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced and intravoxel incoherent motion MRI. Radiol Oncol 54:301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Kakite S, Dyvorne HA, Lee KM, Jajamovich GH, Knight-Greenfield A, Taouli B (2016) Hepatocellular carcinoma: IVIM diffusion quantification for prediction of tumor necrosis compared to enhancement ratios. Eur J Radiol Open 3:1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wáng YXJ, Wang X, Wu P, Wang Y, Chen W, Chen H et al (2019) Topics on quantitative liver magnetic resonance imaging. Quant Imaging Med Surg 9:1840

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Dyvorne HA, Galea N, Nevers T, Fiel MI, Carpenter D, Wong E et al (2013) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver with multiple b values: effect of diffusion gradient polarity and breathing acquisition on image quality and intravoxel incoherent motion parameters—a pilot study. Radiology 266:920

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Barbieri S, Donati OF, Froehlich JM, Thoeny HC (2016) Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters across MR imagers and field strengths: evaluation in upper abdominal organs. Radiology 279:784–794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present study was derived from an M.Sc. thesis (Research Project Code: 981808) which has been supported by the Deputy of Research and Technology of Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Physics, Faculty of Medicine, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Mona Bagheri, Farzaneh Ghorbani, Hossein Akbari-Lalimi, Hadi Akbari-Zadeh & Alireza Montazerabadi

  2. Student Research Committee, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Farzaneh Ghorbani & Hadi Akbari-Zadeh

  3. Department of Radiology Technology, School of Paramedical Sciences, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Mohsen Asadinezhad

  4. Caspian Digestive Disease Research Center, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran

    Afshin Shafaghi

  5. Medical Physics Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran

    Alireza Montazerabadi

Authors
  1. Mona Bagheri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Farzaneh Ghorbani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hossein Akbari-Lalimi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hadi Akbari-Zadeh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohsen Asadinezhad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Afshin Shafaghi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Alireza Montazerabadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alireza Montazerabadi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have no potential conflicts of interest.

Ethical standards

This study was approved by our Institutional Review Board and informed consent was IR.MUMS.MEDICAL.REC.1399.464.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 21 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bagheri, M., Ghorbani, F., Akbari-Lalimi, H. et al. Histopathological graded liver lesions: what role does the IVIM analysis method have?. Magn Reson Mater Phy 36, 565–575 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01060-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01060-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation