Article

Magnetic resonance measurement of diffusion in the abdomen.

Department of Radiology, Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St Louis, MO, USA.
Topics in magnetic resonance imaging: TMRI 04/2009; 20(2):99-104. DOI: 10.1097/RMR.0b013e3181c0d772
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging is an emerging noninvasive technique increasing its spectrum of use in the abdomen. Diffusion-weighted imaging has been used as add-on to routine abdominal protocol because it may potentially substitute contrast-enhanced imaging in cases under risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) images calculated from DW images enable qualitative and quantitative evaluations of tissue water mobility and functional environment because of changes in intracellular, extracellular, and intravascular tissue compartments. This article presents the basic physics of the ADC measurement, the techniques for performing ADC measurements of the liver and the pancreas, and the clinical applications of DW imaging.

0 Followers
 · 
77 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To investigate the clinical potential of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in assessing renal pathology of chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods Seventy-one CKD patients and 12 healthy volunteers were examined using DWI with prospective acquisition correction. Renal biopsy specimens from the CKD patients were scored based on the severity of renal pathology and to confirm pathology type. CKD patients were divided into three groups according to pathology scores: mild, moderate, or severe. The association between renal apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and pathology scores was investigated using Pearson's correlation and single factor analysis of variance. Multiple linear regression analysis was performed to explore associations between renal ADC values and pathology score, glomerular filtration rate, serum creatinine, and age. The Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted to compare ADC values and pathology type. Results Renal ADC values correlated negatively with pathology scores (r = –0.633, P < 0.001). The ADC values among the four groups (mild, moderate, severe impairment, and controls) were significantly different (F = 19.512, P < 0.001). However, when patients were stratified by pathology type, no significant differences were found in ADC values among these groups (χ2 = 9.929, P = 0.270). Further multiple linear regression analysis showed that only the pathology score and ADC values were related (t = –4.586, P = 0.000). Conclusions DWI has clinical potential in assessing the severity of renal pathology in CKD and shows promise as a non-invasive and effective technique to guide therapy and follow-up.
    European journal of radiology 05/2014; 83(5). DOI:10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.01.024 · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: To investigate and optimize diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) acquisitions for pancreatic cancer at 3.0 T. Methods: Forty-five patients with pancreatic cancer were examined by four DWI acquisitions with b values = 0 and 600 s/mm(2) at 3.0 T, including breath-holding DWI (BH-DWI), respiratory-triggered DWI (TRIG-DWI), respiratory-triggered DWI with inversion-recovery technique (TRIGIR-DWI), and free-breathing DWI with inversion-recovery technique (FBIR-DWI). Artifacts, contrast ratio (CR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of pancreatic cancer were statistically compared among DWI acquisitions. Results: TRIGIR-DWI displayed the lowest artifacts and highest CR compared to other DWI acquisitions. CNRs of pancreatic cancer in TRIG-DWI and TRIGIR-DWI were statistically higher than that in FBIR-DWI and BH-DWI. Different ADCs between pancreatic cancer and noncancerous pancreatic tissues were noticed by a paired-samples T test in TRIG-DWI (p = 0.017), TRIGIR-DWI (p = 0.00001) and FBIR-DWI (p = 0.000041). Conclusions: TRIGIR-DWI may be the optimal acquisition of DWI for pancreatic cancer at 3.0 T.
    Magnetic Resonance Imaging 04/2014; 32(7). DOI:10.1016/j.mri.2014.04.011 · 2.02 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the detection of gastric cancer in comparison with that of two-dimensional (2D) multidetector row computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 189 patients with 170 surgically confirmed gastric cancers and 19 patients without gastric cancer, all of whom underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI with diffusion-weighted (DW) imaging, and multidetector contrast-enhanced abdominal CT imaging. Two observers independently analysed three sets of images (CT set, conventional MRI set, and combined conventional and DW MRI set). A five-point scale for likelihood of gastric cancer was used. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were evaluated. Quantitative [apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) analyses with Mann Whitney U-test were conducted for gastric cancers and the nearby normal gastric wall. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity for detection of gastric cancer were significantly higher on combined conventional and DW MRI set (77.8-78.3%; 75.3-75.9%) than the CT imaging set (67.7-71.4%; 64.1-68.2%) or the conventional MRI set (72-73%; 68.8-70%; p < 0.01). In particular, for gastric cancers with pT2 and pT3, the combined conventional and DW MRI set (91.6-92.6%) yielded significantly higher sensitivity for detection of gastric cancer than did the CT imaging set (76.8-81.1%) by both observers (p < 0.01). The mean ADC of gastric cancer lesions (1 +/- 0.23 x 10(-3)mm(2)/s) differed significantly from that of normal gastric wall (1.77 +/- 0.25 x 10(-3) mm(2)/s; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Abdominal MRI with DW imaging was more sensitive for the detection of gastric cancer than 2D-multidetector row CT or conventional MRI alone.
    Clinical Radiology 05/2014; 69(8). DOI:10.1016/j.crad.2014.03.017 · 1.66 Impact Factor