Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tumor detectability and conspicuity comparison of standard b1000 and ultrahigh b2000 diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal cancer

  • Special Section: Rectal Cancer
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare tumor detectability and conspicuity of standard b = 1000 s/mm2 (b1000) versus ultrahigh b = 2000 s/mm2 (b2000) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in rectal cancer.

Methods

Fifty-five patients for a total of 81 3T DWI-MR scans were retrospectively evaluated by two differently experienced readers. A comparison between b1000 and b2000 for tumor detectability and conspicuity was performed. The conspicuity was qualitatively and quantitatively assessed by using three-point scale and whole tumor volume manual delineation, respectively. Receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC) with area under the curve (AUC) analysis provided diagnostic accuracy in tumor detectability of restaging MR scans. Qualitative scores and quantitative features including mean signal intensity, variance, 10th percentile and 90th percentile, were compared using the Wilcoxon test. Interobserver agreement (IOA) for qualitative and quantitative data was calculated using Cohen’s Kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) respectively.

Results

Diagnostic accuracy was comparable between b1000 and b2000 for both readers (p > 0.05). Overall quality scores were significantly better for b2000 than b1000 (2.29 vs 1.65 Reader 1, p = 0.01; 2.18 vs 1.69 Reader 2, p = 0.04). IOA was equally good for both b values (k = 0.86 b1000, k = 0.86 b2000). Quantitative analysis revealed more uniform signal (measured in variance) of b2000 in both healthy surrounding tissue (p < 0.05) and tumor (p < 0.05), with less outliers (measured using 10th and 90th percentile). Additionally, b2000 offered lower mean signal intensity in tissue sorrounding the tumor (p < 0.05). Finally, ICC improved from 0.92 (b1000) to 0.97 (b2000).

Conclusion

Ultrahigh b value (b2000) may improve rectal cancer conspicuity and introbserver agreement maintaining comparable diagnostic accuracy to standard b1000.

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

References

  1. Beets-Tan, R.G.H., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging for clinical management of rectal cancer: Updated recommendations from the 2016 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting. Eur Radiol, 2018. 28(4): p. 1465-1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Delli Pizzi, A., et al., Rectal cancer MRI: protocols, signs and future perspectives radiologists should consider in everyday clinical practice. Insights Imaging, 2018. 9(4): p. 405-412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Maas, M., et al., Wait-and-see policy for clinical complete responders after chemoradiation for rectal cancer. J Clin Oncol, 2011. 29(35): p. 4633-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. van der Paardt, M.P., et al., Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer restaged by using diagnostic MR imaging: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology, 2013. 269(1): p. 101-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lambregts, D.M.J., et al., A Pattern-Based Approach Combining Tumor Morphology on MRI With Distinct Signal Patterns on Diffusion-Weighted Imaging to Assess Response of Rectal Tumors After Chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum, 2018. 61(3): p. 328-337.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Delli Pizzi, A., et al., Performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0T for early assessment of tumor response in locally advanced rectal cancer treated with preoperative chemoradiation therapy. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2018. 43(9): p. 2221-2230.

  7. Lambregts, D.M., et al., Diffusion-weighted MRI to assess response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: main interpretation pitfalls and their use for teaching. Eur Radiol, 2017.

  8. Tamada, T., et al., High b value (2,000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1,000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. PLoS One, 2014. 9(5): p. e96619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fukukura, Y., et al., Computed diffusion-weighted MR imaging for visualization of pancreatic adenocarcinoma: Comparison with acquired diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol, 2017. 95: p. 39-45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ueno, Y., et al., Ultra-high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for the detection of prostate cancer with 3-T MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2013. 38(1): p. 154-60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moribata, Y., et al., Feasibility of Computed Diffusion Weighted Imaging and Optimization of b-value in Cervical Cancer. Magn Reson Med Sci, 2017. 16(1): p. 66-72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hausmann, D., et al., Image Quality Assessment of 2D versus 3D T2WI and Evaluation of Ultra-high b-Value (b = 2,000 mm/s(2)) DWI for Response Assessment in Rectal Cancer. Anticancer Res, 2018. 38(2): p. 969-978.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Tang, L. and X.J. Zhou, Diffusion MRI of cancer: From low to high b-values. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019. 49(1): p. 23-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Xie, H. and G. Wu, Application of Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging and Histogram Analysis for Assessing Preoperative Stages of Rectal Cancer. Gastroenterol Res Pract, 2018. 2018: p. 9786932.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mandard, A.M., et al., Pathologic assessment of tumor regression after preoperative chemoradiotherapy of esophageal carcinoma. Clinicopathologic correlations. Cancer, 1994. 73(11): p. 2680-6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lambregts, D.M., et al., Long-term follow-up features on rectal MRI during a wait-and-see approach after a clinical complete response in patients with rectal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. Dis Colon Rectum, 2011. 54(12): p. 1521-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Rosenkrantz, A.B., et al., Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: Comparison of b1000 and b2000 image sets for index lesion detection. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2013. 38(3): p. 694-700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ning, P., et al., The impact of computed high b-value images on the diagnostic accuracy of DWI for prostate cancer: A receiver operating characteristics analysis. Sci Rep, 2018. 8(1): p. 3409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Goh, V., et al., Quantitative assessment of colorectal cancer tumor vascular parameters by using perfusion CT: influence of tumor region of interest. Radiology, 2008. 247(3): p. 726-32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lambregts, D.M., et al., Tumour ADC measurements in rectal cancer: effect of ROI methods on ADC values and interobserver variability. Eur Radiol, 2011. 21(12): p. 2567-74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Blazic, I.M., G.B. Lilic, and M.M. Gajic, Quantitative Assessment of Rectal Cancer Response to Neoadjuvant Combined Chemotherapy and Radiation Therapy: Comparison of Three Methods of Positioning Region of Interest for ADC Measurements at Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging. Radiology, 2017. 282(2): p. 615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ohgiya, Y., et al., Diagnostic accuracy of ultra-high-b-value 3.0-T diffusion-weighted MR imaging for detection of prostate cancer. Clin Imaging, 2012. 36(5): p. 526-31.

  23. Mazaheri, Y., et al., Model selection for high b-value diffusion-weighted MRI of the prostate. Magn Reson Imaging, 2018. 46: p. 21-27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Martens, M.H., et al., Long-term Outcome of an Organ Preservation Program After Neoadjuvant Treatment for Rectal Cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2016. 108(12).

  25. Lambregts, D.M., et al., MRI and diffusion-weighted MRI to diagnose a local tumour regrowth during long-term follow-up of rectal cancer patients treated with organ preservation after chemoradiotherapy. Eur Radiol, 2016. 26(7): p. 2118-25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Macchia, G., et al., Time to surgery and pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiation in rectal cancer: A population study on 2094 patients. Clin Transl Radiat Oncol, 2017. 4: 8-14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu, S.K., et al., Magnetic resonance imaging defined mucinous rectal carcinoma is an independent imaging biomarker for poor prognosis and poor response to preoperative chemoradiotherapy. Eur J Cancer, 2014. 50:920–927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sengul, N., et al., Effects of radiotherapy on different histopathological types of rectal carcinoma. Color Dis, 2006. 8:283–288

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Daniele Petrucci and Darien Calvo Garcia for their insightful contribution on the MR protocol settings and the acquisition of data; Paolo Raimondi for the surgical specimen and pathology showed in Fig. 4.

Funding

No grant support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroscience, Imaging and Clinical Sciences, Institute for Advanced Biomedical Technologies, “G. d’Annunzio” University, Via Luigi Polacchi, 11, 66100, Chieti, Italy

    Andrea Delli Pizzi, Daniele Caposiena, Roberta Cianci, Barbara Seccia, Barbara Sessa, Filippo Maria Di Flamminio, Piero Chiacchiaretta, Massimo Caulo & Raffaella Basilico

  2. Department of Radiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA

    Domenico Mastrodicasa

  3. Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Stefano Trebeschi, Doenja Lambregts & Regina Beets-Tan

  4. Radiation Oncology Unit, SS Annunziata Hospital, Chieti, Italy

    Consuelo Rosa, Luciana Caravatta & Domenico Genovesi

  5. Section of Pathological Anatomy, Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, G. D’Annunzio University, Chieti, Italy

    Sebastiano Cinalli

  6. Division of Surgical Oncology, “SS Annunziata” Hospital, 66100, Chieti, Italy

    Pierluigi Di Sebastiano

Authors
  1. Andrea Delli Pizzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniele Caposiena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Domenico Mastrodicasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefano Trebeschi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Doenja Lambregts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Consuelo Rosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Roberta Cianci
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Barbara Seccia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Barbara Sessa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Filippo Maria Di Flamminio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Piero Chiacchiaretta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Luciana Caravatta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sebastiano Cinalli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Pierluigi Di Sebastiano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Massimo Caulo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Domenico Genovesi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Regina Beets-Tan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Raffaella Basilico
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors were involved in patient management and wrote and/or reviewed the report. Written consent to publication was obtained.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrea Delli Pizzi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in this study involving human participant were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from the patients included in this study.

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

Delli Pizzi, A., Caposiena, D., Mastrodicasa, D. et al. Tumor detectability and conspicuity comparison of standard b1000 and ultrahigh b2000 diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal cancer. Abdom Radiol 44, 3595–3605 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02177-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02177-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation