Repeatability analysis of ADC histogram metrics of the uterus

Abstract

Background

Recently, histogram analysis based on voxel-wise apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value distribution has been increasingly performed. However, few studies have been reported regarding its repeatability.

Purpose

To evaluate the repeatability of ADC histogram metrics of the uterus in clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Material and Methods

Thirty-three female patients who underwent pelvic MRI including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were prospectively included after providing informed consent. Two sequential DWI acquisitions with identical parameters and position were obtained. Regions of interest (ROIs) for histologically confirmed uterine lesions (five cervical and three endometrial cancers, and one endometrial hyperplasia) and normal appearing tissues (21 endometrium and 33 myometrium) were assigned on the first DWI dataset and then pasted onto the second DWI dataset. ADC histogram metrics within the ROIs were calculated and repeatability was evaluated by calculating within-subject coefficient of variance (%) (wCV (%)) and Bland–Altman plot (%).

Results

ADC 10%, 25%, median, 75%, 90%, maximum, mean, and entropy showed high repeatability (wCV (%) < 7, 95% limit of agreement in Bland–Altman plot (%) < ±20), followed by ADC minimum (wCV (%) = 8.12, 95% limit of agreement in Bland–Altman plot (%) < ±30). However, ADC skewness and kurtosis showed very low repeatability in all evaluations.

Conclusion

ADC histogram metrics like ADC 10%, 25%, median, 75%, 90%, maximum, mean, and entropy are robust biomarkers and could be applicable to clinical use. However, ADC skewness and kurtosis lack robustness. Radiologists should keep these characteristics and limitations in mind when interpreting quantitative DWI.

Keywords

Uterus MR diffusion/perfusion histogram repeatability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Tanner

. Intracellular diffusion of water. Arch Biochem Biophys 1983; 224: 416–428.

Hatakenaka

Soeda

Yabuuchi

et al.

Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci 2008; 7: 23–29.

Namimoto

Awai

Nakaura

et al.

Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of gynecological diseases. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 745–760.

Levy

Medjhoul

Caramella

et al.

Interest of diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient mapping in gynecological malignancies: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 1020–1027.

Kido

Fujimoto

Okada

et al.

Advanced MRI in malignant neoplasms of the uterus. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013; 37: 249–264.

Lin

Huang

Chao

et al.

Endometrial cancer with cervical stromal invasion: diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging at 3T. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 1867–1876.

Lin

Chen

et al.

Correlation of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient with uterine cervical pathologic finding. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 1125–1131.

Guan

Shi

Chen

et al.

Whole-lesion histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient for the assessment of cervical cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016; 40: 212–217.

Kierans

Doshi

Dunst

et al.

Retrospective assessment of histogram-based diffusion metrics for differentiating benign and malignant endometrial lesions. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2016; 40: 723–729.

10.

Takahashi

Kozawa

Tanisaka

et al.

Utility of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps obtained using 3.0T MRI for distinguishing uterine carcinosarcoma from endometrial carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016; 43: 1301–1307.

11.

Downey

Riches

Morgan

et al.

Relationship between imaging biomarkers of stage I cervical cancer and poor-prognosis histologic features: quantitative histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted MR images. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 314–320.

12.

Nougaret

Reinhold

Alsharif

et al.

Endometrial cancer: combined MR volumetry and diffusion-weighted imaging for assessment of myometrial and lymphovascular invasion and tumor grade. Radiology 2015; 276: 797–808.

13.

Winfield

Collins

Priest

et al.

A framework for optimization of diffusion-weighted MRI protocols for large field-of-view abdominal-pelvic imaging in multicenter studies. Med Phys 2016; 43: 95–95.

14.

Aliu

Jones

Azziz

et al.

Repeatability of quantitative MRI measurements in normal breast tissue. Transl Oncol 2014; 7: 130–137.

15.

Lecler

Savatovsky

Balvay

et al.

Repeatability of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion parameters at 3.0 Tesla in orbital lesions. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 5094–5103.

16.

Fedorov

Vangel

Tempany

et al.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate: repeatability of volume and apparent diffusion coefficient quantification. Invest Radiol 2017; 52: 538–546.

17.

Jiang

Yin

Cui

et al.

Lung cancer: short-term reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2018; 47: 1003–1012.

18.

Spick

Bickel

Pinker

et al.

Diffusion-weighted MRI of breast lesions: a prospective clinical investigation of the quantitative imaging biomarker characteristics of reproducibility, repeatability, and diagnostic accuracy. NMR Biomed 2016; 29: 1445–1453.

19.

Hoang

Choudhury

Chang

et al.

Diffusion-weighted imaging for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma: quantifying repeatability to understand early treatment-induced change. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 1104–1108.

20.

Intven

Reerink

Philippens

. Repeatability of diffusion-weighted imaging in rectal cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 40: 146–150.

21.

Winfield

Tunariu

Rata

et al.

Extracranial soft-tissue tumors: repeatability of apparent diffusion coefficient estimates from diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 2017; 284: 88–99.

22.

Weller

Papoutsaki

Waterton

et al.

Diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in lung cancers: ADC test-retest repeatability. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 4552–4562.

23.

Kessler

Barnhart

Buckler

et al.

The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res 2015; 24: 9–26.

24.

Raunig

McShane

Pennello

et al.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers: a review of statistical methods for technical performance assessment. Stat Methods Med Res 2015; 24: 27–67.

25.

Rechichi

Galimberti

Oriani

et al.

ADC maps in the prediction of pelvic lymph nodal metastatic regions in endometrial cancer. Eur Radiol 2013; 23: 65–74.

26.

Inoue

Fujii

Kaneda

et al.

Correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic parameters of endometrioid carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 213–219.

27.

Yang

Qiang

Tian

et al.

Minimum apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting lymphovascular invasion in invasive cervical cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017; 45: 1771–1779.

28.

Marconi

Fregnani

Rossini

et al.

Pre-treatment MRI minimum apparent diffusion coefficient value is a potential prognostic imaging biomarker in cervical cancer patients treated with definitive chemoradiation. BMC Cancer 2016; 16: 556–556.

29.

Wang

Yan

et al.

Histogram analysis of diffusion kurtosis magnetic resonance imaging in differentiation of pathologic Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2015; 33: 337.e315–324.

30.

Zhang

Wang

et al.

The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2015; 25: 994–1004.

31.

Sidhu

Benigno

Ganeshan

et al.

Textural analysis of multiparametric MRI detects transition zone prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 2017; 27: 2348–2358.