• Clinical Article •
Diagnostic value of whole body diffusion weighted imaging in malignant lymphadenopathy
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.01.011.
| [Abstract] Objective: To study the value and significance of the body diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis between lymphoma and lymph node metastases.Material and Methods: Select 25 cases of clinically diagnosed lymphoma patients, 20 patients with lymph node metastases, and 15 healthy volunteers as control group, all lines of WB-DWI imaging and T2 fat suppression shaft can scan, record ADC values of all abnormal lymph nodes and the lymph nodes in the normal control group, the lymphoma group and the normal group, lymph node metastasis group and the normal group, lymphoma group and metastasis between groups ADC value two two comparison, to investigate whether the ADC value has significant differences in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of malignant lymph node lesions. Try to determine the best differential diagnosis OT between lymphoma and lymph node metastasis under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (ROC curve) analysis.Results: Lymphoma group ADC value was (0.70±0.13) mm2/1000 s, lymph node metastasis group ADC value was (0.94±0.14) mm2/1000 s, normal control group ADC value was (1.23±0.24) mm2/1000 s, with the independent sample t test, lymphoma group with lymph node metastasis between groups ADC value with statistical significance (t=-16.395, P<0.05), lymphoma group and normal control group ADC value with statistical significance (t=-14.876, P<0.05), lymph node metastasis group and normal control group with statistical significance (t=-7.851, P<0.05). By ROC curve we obtained that when the ADC value was 0.79, AZ value was 0.910, which corresponds to the sensitivity 90.3%, specificity 80.6%, this time accurate index was the highest and the diagnostic efficacy best.Conclusions: Whole body diffusion weighted imaging has a good application prospect in diagnosis of systemic malignant lymphadenopathy, through quantitative analysis of ADC value can provide the reference basis for the distinction between the two. |
| [Keywords] Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging；Lymphoma；Lymph node |
LI Li Department of Radiology, Baoji Central Hospital, Shaanxi Province, Baoji 721008, China
SUO Ling-yun Department of Radiology, Baoji Central Hospital, Shaanxi Province, Baoji 721008, China
Li Jing Department of Radiology, Baoji Central Hospital, Shaanxi Province, Baoji 721008, China
REN Hui-peng Department of Radiology, Baoji Central Hospital, Shaanxi Province, Baoji 721008, China
WANG Xiao-hu Department of Radiology, Baoji Central Hospital, Shaanxi Province, Baoji 721008, China
REN Zhuan-qin* Department of Radiology, Baoji Central Hospital, Shaanxi Province, Baoji 721008, China
*Correspondence to: Ren ZQ, E-mail: Renzhuanqin@163.com
Conflicts of interest None.
| Received 2014-08-26 |
| Accepted 2014-11-16 |
| DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.01.011 |
| DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.01.011. |
[1]
Lichy MP, Aschoff P, Plathow C, et al. Tumor detection by diffusion weighted MRI and ADC mapping initial clinical experiences in cpmparison to PET-CT. Invest Radial, 2007, 42(9): 605-613.
[2]
李琼，白人驹，邵宗鸿，等．应用DWI鉴别系统性淋巴瘤与淋巴结转移瘤.临床放射学杂志, 2010, 29(10): 1372-1375.
[3]
Squillaci E, Manenti G, Cova M, et al. Correlation of diffusion weighted MR imaging with cellularity of renal tumours. Anticancer Res, 2004, 24(6): 4175-4179.
[4]
Issa B. In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2002, 16(2): 196-200.
[5]
Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Sreenivas M, et al. Diffusionweighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2006, 23(2): 130-134.
[6]
龚红霞，路青，朱炯，等. 3.0 T MR ADC值与T2值定量测量在颈部淋巴瘤诊断价值的研究．磁共振成像, 2012, 3(5): 367-371.
[7]
陈业媛，周战梅，何斌，等. DWI在单发性脑转移瘤、脑胶质瘤和脑脓肿鉴别诊断中的价值．实用临床医学, 2008, 9(4): 87-88.
[8]
龚红霞，许建荣．全身磁共振扩散加权成像在肿瘤中的应用．放射学实践, 2009, 24(3): 341-343.
[9]
Toh CH, Castillo M, Wong AM, et al. Prinary cerebral lymphoma and glioblastoma multiforme: differences in diffusion characteristics evaluated with diffusion tensor imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2008, 29(3), 471-475.
[10]
Herneth AM, Guccione S, Bednarski M. Apparent diffusion coefficient: a quantitative parameter for in vivo tumor characterization. Eur J Radio, 2003, 45(3): 208-213.
