Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)

Abstract This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm2) were analyzed in patients with mali...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales:	Narine Mesropyan, Petra Mürtz, Alois M. Sprinkart, Wolfgang Block, Julian A. Luetkens, Ulrike Attenberger, Claus C. Pieper
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	Nature Portfolio 2021
Materias:	Medicine R Science Q
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/ad18ed8f8a824123907e4b62532024d2
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:ad18ed8f8a824123907e4b62532024d2
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:ad18ed8f8a824123907e4b62532024d22021-11-28T12:18:23ZComparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)10.1038/s41598-021-01108-62045-2322https://doaj.org/article/ad18ed8f8a824123907e4b62532024d22021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-01108-6https://doaj.org/toc/2045-2322Abstract This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm2) were analyzed in patients with malignant (n = 74/54) and benign (n = 35/19) lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM parameters D1′ = ADC(50,800), D2′ = ADC(250,800), f1′ = f(0,50,800), f2′ = f(0,250,800), and D' = D(0,50,250,800) were calculated voxel-wise. For each lesion, a representative 2D-ROI, a 3D-ROI whole lesion, and a 3D-ROI from “good” slices were placed, including and excluding centrally deviating areas (CDA) if present, and analyzed with various histogram metrics. The diagnostic performance of 2D- and 3D-ROIs was not significantly different; e.g. AUC (ADC/D1′/f1′) were 0.958/0.902/0.622 for 2D- and 0.942/0.892/0.712 for whole lesion 3D-ROIs excluding CDA at 1.5 T (p > 0.05). For 2D- and 3D-ROIs, AUC (ADC/D1′/D2′) were significantly higher, when CDA were excluded. With CDA included, AUC (ADC/D1′/D2′/f1′/D*') improved when low percentiles were used instead of averages, and was then comparable to the results of average ROI analysis excluding CDA. For lesion differentiation the use of a representative 2D-ROI is sufficient. CDA should be excluded from ROIs by hand or automatically using low percentiles of diffusion coefficients.Narine MesropyanPetra MürtzAlois M. SprinkartWolfgang BlockJulian A. LuetkensUlrike AttenbergerClaus C. PieperNature PortfolioarticleMedicineRScienceQENScientific Reports, Vol 11, Iss 1, Pp 1-13 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	Medicine R Science Q
spellingShingle	Medicine R Science Q Narine Mesropyan Petra Mürtz Alois M. Sprinkart Wolfgang Block Julian A. Luetkens Ulrike Attenberger Claus C. Pieper Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
description	Abstract This study investigated the impact of different ROI placement and analysis methods on the diagnostic performance of simplified IVIM-DWI for differentiating liver lesions. 1.5/3.0-T DWI data from a respiratory-gated MRI sequence (b = 0, 50, 250, 800 s/mm2) were analyzed in patients with malignant (n = 74/54) and benign (n = 35/19) lesions. Apparent diffusion coefficient ADC = ADC(0,800) and IVIM parameters D1′ = ADC(50,800), D2′ = ADC(250,800), f1′ = f(0,50,800), f2′ = f(0,250,800), and D' = D(0,50,250,800) were calculated voxel-wise. For each lesion, a representative 2D-ROI, a 3D-ROI whole lesion, and a 3D-ROI from “good” slices were placed, including and excluding centrally deviating areas (CDA) if present, and analyzed with various histogram metrics. The diagnostic performance of 2D- and 3D-ROIs was not significantly different; e.g. AUC (ADC/D1′/f1′) were 0.958/0.902/0.622 for 2D- and 0.942/0.892/0.712 for whole lesion 3D-ROIs excluding CDA at 1.5 T (p > 0.05). For 2D- and 3D-ROIs, AUC (ADC/D1′/D2′) were significantly higher, when CDA were excluded. With CDA included, AUC (ADC/D1′/D2′/f1′/D*') improved when low percentiles were used instead of averages, and was then comparable to the results of average ROI analysis excluding CDA. For lesion differentiation the use of a representative 2D-ROI is sufficient. CDA should be excluded from ROIs by hand or automatically using low percentiles of diffusion coefficients.
format	article
author	Narine Mesropyan Petra Mürtz Alois M. Sprinkart Wolfgang Block Julian A. Luetkens Ulrike Attenberger Claus C. Pieper
author_facet	Narine Mesropyan Petra Mürtz Alois M. Sprinkart Wolfgang Block Julian A. Luetkens Ulrike Attenberger Claus C. Pieper
author_sort	Narine Mesropyan
title	Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_short	Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_full	Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_fullStr	Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_full_unstemmed	Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)
title_sort	comparison of different roi analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (ivim)
publisher	Nature Portfolio
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/ad18ed8f8a824123907e4b62532024d2
work_keys_str_mv	AT narinemesropyan comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim AT petramurtz comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim AT aloismsprinkart comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim AT wolfgangblock comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim AT julianaluetkens comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim AT ulrikeattenberger comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim AT clauscpieper comparisonofdifferentroianalysismethodsforliverlesioncharacterizationwithsimplifiedintravoxelincoherentmotionivim
_version_	1718408095210668032

Comparison of different ROI analysis methods for liver lesion characterization with simplified intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)

Ejemplares similares