Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background

Little is known of the influence of scanner field strength on quantitative diffusivity variables, especially kurtosis in healthy ovaries.

Purpose

To evaluate the influence of scanner field strength on quantitative diffusion variables in pelvic MRI of the ovaries.

Material and Methods

This prospective, single-centre study consisted of repeated 1.5-T and 3-T examinations in 30 female volunteers (mean age=27.9 years, age range=20.3–45.2 years) from July 2017 to September 2019. Multi b-value DWI 0, 50, 100, 800, 1500, 2000 s/mm² was acquired over three timepoints during the menstrual cycle. Ovaries were segmented at b = 1500 s/mm². Median apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and advanced kurtosis parameters D_app and K_app were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed with the variations of diffusivity variables being compared between 1.5-T and 3-T MRI using a Mann–Whitney rank-sum test.

Results

Median ADC and D_app (µm²/ms) did not statistically differ. Median ADC were 1.509 (range=1.371–1.610), 1.619 (range=1.463–1.747), and 1.511 (range=1.423–1.639) at 1.5 T; 1.542 (range=1.428–1.682), 1.658 (range=1.510–1.806), and 1.572 (range=1.455–1.709) at 3 T (P = 0.14, 0.19, and 0.07), whereas median D_app were 2.024 (range=1.913–2.152), 2.192 (range=2.010–2.327), and 2.045 (range=1.958–2.170) at 1.5 T; 2.013 (range=1.952–2.188), 2.179 (range=2.018–2.327), and 2.082 (range=1.959–2.194) at 3 T (P = 0.77, 0.99, and 0.34) for timepoints 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Statistical comparison of K_app revealed significant differences for all timepoints: 0.629 (range=0.595–0.652), 0.604 (range=0.574–0.651), and 0.622 (range=0.581–0.664) at 1.5 T; 0.601 (range=0.563–0.626), 0.567 (range=0.526–0.633), and 0.599 (range=0.541–0.650) at 3 T (P < 0.001, 0.005, and 0.03).

Conclusion

Diffusivity mapping in the ovaries provides similar absolute median diffusion values, but statistically significant differences in absolute kurtosis values between 1.5 T and 3 T.

Keywords

Genital reproductive magnetic resonance diffusion/perfusion ovaries adults

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Vernooij

Heintz

Witteveen

, et al. The outcomes of ovarian cancer treatment are better when provided by gynecologic oncologists and in specialized hospitals: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol 2007;105:801–812.

Choi

Park

Han

, et al. Imaging features of complex solid and multicystic ovarian lesions: proposed algorithm for differential diagnosis. Clin Imaging 2016;40:46–56.

Kinkel

Mehdizade

, et al. Indeterminate ovarian mass at US: incremental value of second imaging test for characterization–meta-analysis and Bayesian analysis. Radiology 2005;236:85–94.

Spencer

Forstner

Cunha

, et al., Sub-Committee EFI. ESUR guidelines for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an algorithmic approach. Eur Radiol 2010;20:25–35.

Partridge

Nissan

Rahbar

, et al. Diffusion-weighted breast MRI: clinical applications and emerging techniques. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:337–355.

Tang

Zhou

. Diffusion MRI of cancer: from low to high b-values. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49:23–40.

Bickelhaupt S, Steudle F, Paech D, et al. On a fractional order calculus model in diffusion weighted breast imaging to differentiate between malignant and benign breast lesions detected on X-ray screening mammography. PLoS One 2017;12:e0176077.

Liu

. Diagnostic performance of monoexponential DWI versus diffusion kurtosis imaging in prostate cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2018;211:358–368.

Jiang

Tang

Zhong

, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging for differentiating between the benign and malignant sinonasal lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:1446–1454.

10.

Patterson

Padhani

Collins

. Technology insight: water diffusion MRI-a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 2008;5:220–233.

11.

Hamstra

Rehemtulla

Ross

. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:4104–4109.

12.

Mohaghegh

Rockall

. Imaging strategy for early ovarian cancer: characterization of adnexal masses with conventional and advanced imaging techniques. Radiographics 2012;32:1751–1773.

13.

Zhang

Cui

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MR imaging for differentiating complex solid and cystic ovarian tumors at 1.5T. World J Surg Oncol 2012;10:237.

14.

Takeuchi

Matsuzaki

Nishitani

. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of ovarian tumors: differentiation of benign and malignant solid components of ovarian masses. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2010;34:173–176.

15.

Chu

Cui

, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI: a useful technique to discriminate benign versus malignant ovarian surface epithelial tumors with solid and cystic components. Abdom Imaging 2012;37:897–903.

16.

Fujii

Kakite

Nishihara

, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging in differentiating benign from malignant ovarian lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:1149–1156.

17.

Katayama

Masui

Kobayashi

, et al.

Diffusion-weighted echo planar imaging of ovarian tumors: is it useful to measure apparent diffusion coefficients?

J Comput Assist Tomogr 2002;26:250–256.

18.

Thomassin-Naggara

Daraï

Cuenod

, et al. Contribution of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for predicting benignity of complex adnexal masses. Eur Radiol 2009;19:1544–1552.

19.

Thomassin-Naggara

Toussaint

Perrot

, et al. Characterization of complex adnexal masses: value of adding perfusion- and diffusion-weighted MR imaging to conventional MR imaging. Radiology 2011;258:793–803.

20.

Forstner

Thomassin-Naggara

Cunha

, et al. ESUR recommendations for MR imaging of the sonographically indeterminate adnexal mass: an update. Eur Radiol 2017;27:2248–2257.

21.

Reinhold

Rockall

Sadowski

, et al. Ovarian-adnexal reporting lexicon for MRI: a white paper of the ACR ovarian-adnexal reporting and data systems MRI committee. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:713–729.

22.

Mokry T, Mlynarska-Bujny A, Kuder TA, et al. Ultra-high-b-value kurtosis imaging for noninvasive tissue characterization of ovarian lesions. Radiology 2020;296:358–369.

23.

Rosenkrantz

Oei

Babb

, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011;33:128–135.

24.

Merhemic

Imsirovic

Bilalovic

, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility in brain tumors measured on 1.5 and 3T clinical scanners: a pilot study. Eur J Radiol 2018;108:249–253.

25.

Barral

Soyer

Ben Hassen

, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the normal pancreas: reproducibility and variations of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement at 1.5- and 3.0-Tesla. Diagn Interv Imaging 2013;94:418–427.

26.

Matsuoka

Minato

Harada

, et al. Comparison of 3.0-and 1.5-tesla diffusion-weighted imaging in the visibility of breast cancer. Radiat Med 2008;26:15–20.

27.

Lavdas

Miquel

McRobbie

, et al. Comparison between diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) at 1.5 and 3 tesla: a phantom study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014;40:682–690.

28.

Mokry T, Pantke J, Mlynarska-Bujny A, et al. Diffusivity mapping of the ovaries: Variability of apparent diffusion and kurtosis variables over the menstrual cycle and influence of oral contraceptives. Magn Reson Imaging 2021;80:50–57.

29.

Le Bihan

Breton

Lallemand

, et al. MR imaging of intravoxel incoherent motions: application to diffusion and perfusion in neurologic disorders. Radiology 1986;161:401–407.

30.

Ogura

Tamura

Ozaki

, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value is not dependent on magnetic resonance systems and field strength under fixed imaging parameters in brain. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2015;39:760–765.

31.

Belli

Busoni

Ciccarone

, et al. Quality assurance multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;43:213–219.

32.

Grech-Sollars

Hales

Miyazaki

, et al. Multi-centre reproducibility of diffusion MRI parameters for clinical sequences in the brain. NMR Biomed 2015;28:468–485.

33.

Shaw

Jensen

Deardorff

, et al. Comparison of diffusion metrics obtained at 1.5T and 3T in human brain with diffusional kurtosis imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2017;45:673–680.

34.

Alexander

Lee

, et al. Comparison of diffusion tensor imaging measurements at 3.0T versus 1.5T with and without parallel imaging. Neuroimag Clin N Am 2006;16:299–309.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.01 MB

0.02 MB

Influence of field strength on quantitative parameters and feature stability in the assessment of the ovaries using 1.5-T and 3-T MRI

Abstract

Background

Purpose

Material and Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material