Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]98978
• Academic Debate •
Semi-quantitative and quantitative parametric analysis of 3.0 T dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in diagnosing tumors of ovary
GUO Yong-mei  HUANG Yun-hai  WEI Xin-hua  YANG Rui-meng  LIU Guo-shun  XU Xiang-dong  LI Xue-li 

DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.10.013.


[Abstract] Objective: To evaluate the value of 3.0 T DCE-MR in diagnosing tumors of ovary.Materials and Methods: Thirty-two cases of ovarian lesions (17 were malignant, 15 were benign) were evaluated in our study. All cases were received dynamic contrast-enhanced scanning on 3.0 T MR. The raw data was processed by SIEMENS TISSUE 4D software and the signal intensity time curve (TIC) was obtained and analyzed. Pharmacokinetic modeling of Tofts with a modeled vascular input function was used for the quantitative measurements volume: transfer constant (Ktrans), reverse volume transfer constant (Kep), the extravascular extracellular space volume per unit volume of tissue (Ve). The correlation of these measurements at each groups were investigated. Compare TIC curve and the data of perfusion parameters of each groups.Results: Among 17 malignant tumors, 9 were cystadenocarcinoma and 6 were metastatic adenocarcinoma, 2 were lymphoma. 15 benign lesions included 5 cystadenomas, 8 normal ovaries and 2 ovarian cysts. 100% cases of benign lesions belong to Type I curve and 71% cases of malignant tumors belong to Type II curve. There was statistically significant difference in TIC curve between benign and malignant groups (P<0.05). If Type I curve was used as diagnostic criteria for benign and Type II for malignant, ROC resulted the AUC was 0.856. The mean value of perfusion parameters of the two groups were: Ktrans was (0.166±0.077) min-1 in malignant group and (0.071±0.025) min-1 in benign group, Kep was (0.455±0.172) min-1 in malignant group and (0.363±0.242) min-1 in benign group. Ve was (0.438±0.137) in malignant and (0.426±0.154) in benign group. Ktrans was significantly difference between the malignant group and benign group (P=0.000).Conclusion: The Types of TIC and Ktrans value were important criterion in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian tumors in dynamic enhanced MR imaging. These parameters were important supplement for conventional morphology MR diagnosis.
[Keywords] Ovarian neoplasms；Magnetic resonance imaging；Time-signal intensity curve；Pharmacokinetics；Models, Statistical

GUO Yong-mei* Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

HUANG Yun-hai Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

WEI Xin-hua Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

YANG Rui-meng Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

LIU Guo-shun Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

XU Xiang-dong Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

LI Xue-li Department of Radiology, Guangzhou First People’s Hospital, Guangzhou Medical University, Guangdong 510180, China

*Correspondence to: Guo YM, E-mail: yongmei0323@163.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

Received  2015-07-19
Accepted  2015-09-15
DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.10.013
DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8034.2015.10.013.

[1]
Kido A, Fujimoto K, Okada T, et al. Advanced MRI in malignant neoplasms of the uterus. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging:JMRI, 2013, 37(2): 249-264.
[2]
Hauth EA, Jaeger H, Maderwald S, et al. Quantitative parametric analysis of contrast-enhanced lesions in dynamic MR mammography. Der Radiologe, 2008, 48(6): 593-600.
[3]
Ozduman K, Yildiz E, Dincer A, et al. Using intraoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MRI to identify residual tumor in glioblastoma surgery. Journal of neurosurgery, 2014, 120(1): 60-66.
[4]
Engelbrecht MR, Huisman HJ, Laheij RJ, et al. Discrimination of prostate cancer from normal peripheral zone and central gland tissue by using dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology, 2003, 229(1): 248-254.
[5]
Zahra MA, Tan LT, Priest AN, et al. Semiquantitative and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging measurements predict radiation response in cervix cancer. International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics, 2009, 74(3): 766-773.
[6]
Thomassin-Naggara I, Darai E, Cuenod CA, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging: a useful tool for characterizing ovarian epithelial tumors. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging: JMRI, 2008, 28(1): 111-120.
[7]
Bamias A, Sotiropoulou M, Zagouri F, et al. Prognostic evaluation of tumour type and other histopathological characteristics in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer, treated with surgery and paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy: cell type is the most useful prognostic factor. European journal of cancer, 2012, 48(10): 1476-1483.
[8]
Woodward PJ, Hosseinzadeh K, Saenger JS. From the archives of the AFIP: radiologic staging of ovarian carcinoma with pathologic correlation. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc, 2004, 24(1): 225-246.
[9]
Donaldson SB, West CM, Davidson SE, et al. A comparison of tracer kinetic models for T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI: application in carcinoma of the cervix. Magnetic resonance in medicine: official journal of the Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2010, 63(3): 691-700.
[10]
Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S, et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions. Radiology, 1999, 211(1): 101-110.
[11]
Franiel T, Hamm B, Hricak H. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and pharmacokinetic models in prostate cancer. European radiology, 2011, 21(3): 616-626.
[12]
Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, et al. Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc, 2006, 26(6): 1719-1734.
[13]
Hansford BG, Peng Y, Jiang Y, et al. Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging Curve-type Analysis: Is It Helpful in the Differentiation of Prostate Cancer from Healthy Peripheral Zone. Radiology, 2015, 275(2): 448-457.
[14]
Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging: JMRI, 1999, 10(3): 223-232.
[15]
Veeravagu A, Hou LC, Hsu AR, et al. The temporal correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging with tumor angiogenesis in a murine glioblastoma model. Neurological research, 2008, 30(9): 952-959.
[16]
Folkman J. Tumor angiogenesis: therapeutic implications. The New England journal of medicine, 1971, 285(21): 1182-1186.
[17]
丁爽，贾文霄，许永华,等. DCE-MRI联合DWI评价肿瘤血管生成的实验研究.中国医学计算机成像杂志, 2012, 18(6): 542-547.
[18]
Kim JH, Kim CK, Park BK, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced 3-T MR imaging in cervical cancer before and after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. European radiology, 2012, 22(11): 2533-2539.
[19]
白雪冬，孙夕林，王丹,等.动态对比增强MRI在鉴别胶质瘤复发及放射性脑损伤中的应用.磁共振成像, 2014, 5(1):1-6.
[20]
方俊华，闵祥德，冯朝燕,等.磁共振灌注加权成像定量参数在前列腺外周带前列腺癌鉴别诊断中的价值.磁共振成像, 2015, 6(2): 136-140.

PREV Value of digital X-ray mammography and 3.0 T MRI in the diagnosis of small breast cancer
NEXT MRI research progress of encephalopathy in patients with type 2 diabetes
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn