Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Radiology
Published in: European Radiology 8/2018

Open Access 01-08-2018 | Magnetic Resonance

How reliable are ADC measurements? A phantom and clinical study of cervical lymph nodes

Authors: Bastien Moreau, Antoine Iannessi, Christopher Hoog, Hubert Beaumont

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 8/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To assess the reliability of ADC measurements in vitro and in cervical lymph nodes of healthy volunteers.

Methods

We used a GE 1.5 T MRI scanner and a first ice-water phantom according to recommendations released by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) for assessing ADC against reference values. We analysed the target size effect by using a second phantom made of six inserted spheres with diameters ranging from 10 to 37 mm. Thirteen healthy volunteers were also scanned to assess the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of volumetric ADC measurements of cervical lymph nodes.

Results

On the ice-water phantom, the error in ADC measurements was less than 4.3 %. The spatial bias due to the non-linearity of gradient fields was found to be 24 % at 8 cm from the isocentre. ADC measure reliability decreased when addressing small targets due to partial volume effects (up to 12.8 %). The mean ADC value of cervical lymph nodes was 0.87.10-3 ± 0.12.10-3 mm2/s with a good intra-observer reliability. Inter-observer reproducibility featured a bias of -5.5 % due to segmentation issues.

Conclusion

ADC is a potentially important imaging biomarker in oncology; however, variability issues preclude its broader adoption. Reliable use of ADC requires technical advances and systematic quality control.

Key Points

• ADC is a promising quantitative imaging biomarker.
• ADC has a fair inter-reader variability and good intra-reader variability.
• Partial volume effect, post-processing software and non-linearity of scanners are limiting factors.
• No threshold values for detecting cervical lymph node malignancy can be drawn.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Kessler LG, Barnhart HX, Buckler AJ et al (2015) The emerging science of quantitative imaging biomarkers terminology and definitions for scientific studies and regulatory submissions. Stat Methods Med Res 24:9–26CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Thomassin-Naggara I, Dechoux S, Bonneau C et al (2013) How to differentiate benign from malignant myometrial tumours using MR imaging. Eur Radiol 23:2306–2314CrossRefPubMed
4.
Hambrock T, Somford DM, Huisman HJ et al (2011) Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficients at 3.0-T MR imaging and Gleason grade in peripheral zone prostate cancer. Radiology 259:453–461CrossRefPubMed
5.
Higano S, Yun X, Kumabe T et al (2006) Malignant astrocytic tumors clinical importance of apparent diffusion coefficient in prediction of grade and prognosis. Radiology 241:839–846CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Padhani AR, Liu G, Mu-Koh D et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Patterson DM, Padhani AR, Collins DJ (2008) Technology Insight water diffusion MRI—a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy. Nat Clin Pract Oncol 5:220–233CrossRefPubMed
9.
Torabi M, Aquino SL, Harisinghani MG (2004) Current concepts in lymph node imaging. J Nucl Med 45:1509–1518PubMed
10.
King AD, Ahuja AT, Yeung DK et al (2007) Malignant cervical lymphadenopathy diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 245:806–813CrossRefPubMed
11.
Choi EK, Kim JK, Choi HJ et al (2009) Node-by-node correlation between MR and PET/CT in patients with uterine cervical cancer diffusion-weighted imaging versus size-based criteria on T2WI. Eur Radiol 19:2024–2032CrossRefPubMed
12.
Kwee TC, Takahara T, Luijten PR, Nievelstein RAJ (2010) ADC measurements of lymph nodes Inter- and intra-observer reproducibility study and an overview of the literature. Eur J Radiol 75:215–220CrossRefPubMed
13.
Seber T, Caglar E, Uylar T et al (2015) Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes in different regions of the body. Clin Imaging 39:856–862CrossRefPubMed
14.
Deng J, Wang Y (2017) Quantitative magnetic resonance imaging biomarkers in oncological clinical trials. Current techniques and standardization challenges. Chronic Dis Transl Med 3:8–20CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
16.
17.
Chenevert TL, Galbán CJ, Ivancevic MK et al (2011) Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:983–987CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Malyarenko D, Galbán CJ, Londy FJ et al (2013) Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1238–1246CrossRefPubMed
19.
Harris KR, Woolf LA (1980) Pressure and temperature dependence of the self diffusion coefficient of water and oxygen-18 water. J Chem Soc Faraday Trans 1 Phys Chem Condens Phases 76:377
20.
Mills R (1973) Self-diffusion in normal and heavy water in the range 1-45.deg. J Phys Chem 77:685–688CrossRef
21.
Robbins KT, Clayman G, Levine PA et al (2002) Neck dissection classification update revisions proposed by the American Head and Neck Society and the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 128:751–758CrossRefPubMed
22.
23.
Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L et al (2015) Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 84:1729–1736CrossRefPubMed
24.
Ma C, Liu L, Li J et al (2016) Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in pancreatic adenocarcinoma A preliminary study of the effect of region of interest on ADC values and interobserver variability Effects of ROI on ADC Measurements in PDAC. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:407–413CrossRefPubMed
25.
Blazic IM, Lilic GB, Gajic MM (2017) Quantitative assessment of rectal cancer response to neoadjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy: comparison of three methods of positioning region of interest for ADC measurements at diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Radiology 282(2):418–428. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1148/​radiol.​2016151908
26.
Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Del Grande F et al (2016) Interobserver variability of selective region-of-interest measurement protocols for quantitative diffusion weighted imaging in soft tissue masses Comparison with whole tumor volume measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:446–454CrossRefPubMed
27.
Malyarenko DI, Newitt D, Wilmes LJ et al (2016) Demonstration of nonlinearity bias in the measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in multicenter trials Cross-Platform ADC Bias Characterization. Magn Reson Med 75:1312–1323CrossRefPubMed
28.
Sumi M, Sakihama N, Sumi T et al (2003) Discrimination of metastatic cervical lymph nodes with diffusion-weighted MR imaging in patients with head and neck cancer. Am J Neuroradiol 24:1627–1634PubMed
29.
Akduman EI, Momtahen AJ, Balci NC et al (2008) Comparison between malignant and benign abdominal lymph nodes on diffusion-weighted Imaging. Acad Radiol 15:641–646CrossRefPubMed
30.
Vandecaveye V, De Keyzer F, Vander Poorten V et al (2009) Head and neck squamous cell carcinoma value of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for nodal staging 1. Radiology 251:134–146CrossRefPubMed
31.
Belli G, Busoni S, Ciccarone A et al (2016) Quality assurance multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 43:213–219CrossRefPubMed
32.
Grech-Sollars M, Hales PW, Miyazaki K et al (2015) Multi-centre reproducibility of diffusion MRI parameters for clinical sequences in the brain Multi-centre reproducibility of diffusion MRI using clinical sequences. NMR Biomed 28:468–485CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
Nogueira L, Brandão S, Nunes RG et al (2015) Breast DWI at 3 T influence of the fat-suppression technique on image quality and diagnostic performance. Clin Radiol 70:286–294CrossRefPubMed
34.
35.
Wang H-Y, Wang J, Tang Y-H et al (2015) Coronal diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the kidney agreement with axial diffusion-weighted magnetic imaging in terms of apparent diffusion coefficient values. Chin Med J (Engl) 128:499CrossRef
36.
37.
Malyarenko DI, Ross BD, Chenevert TL (2014) Analysis and correction of gradient nonlinearity bias in apparent diffusion coefficient measurements ADC Spatial Bias Correction. Magn Reson Med 71:1312–1323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Malyarenko DI, Chenevert TL (2014) Practical estimate of gradient nonlinearity for implementation of ADC bias correction. J Magn Reson Imaging 40:1487–1495CrossRefPubMedCentral
39.
Buckler AJ, Bresolin L, Dunnick NR et al (2011) Quantitative imaging test approval and biomarker qualification interrelated but distinct activities. Radiology 259:875–884CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
41.
Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D et al (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zhang Y-D, Wang Q, Wu C-J et al (2015) The histogram analysis of diffusion-weighted Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) imaging for differentiating the Gleason grade of prostate cancer. Eur Radiol 25:994–1004CrossRefPubMed
43.
Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T et al (2008) Parotid gland tumors can addition of diffusion-weighted MR imaging to dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging improve diagnostic accuracy in characterization? Radiology 249:909–916CrossRefPubMed
44.
45.
Le Bihan D, Poupon C, Amadon A, Lethimonnier F (2006) Artifacts and pitfalls in diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:478–488CrossRefPubMed
46.
Kandpal H, Sharma R, Madhusudhan KS, Kapoor KS (2009) Respiratory-triggered versus breath-hold diffusion-weighted MRI of liver lesions comparison of image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient values. Am J Roentgenol 192:915–922CrossRef
47.
Choi JS, Kim M-J, Chung YE et al (2013) Comparison of breathhold, navigator-triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MRI for focal hepatic lesions diffusion-weighted MRI techniques of the Liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:109–118CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
How reliable are ADC measurements? A phantom and clinical study of cervical lymph nodes
Authors
Bastien Moreau
Antoine Iannessi
Christopher Hoog
Hubert Beaumont
Publication date
01-08-2018
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 8/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-5265-2

Other articles of this Issue 8/2018

European Radiology 8/2018 Go to the issue

Neuro

Monitoring cerebral blood flow change through use of arterial spin labelling in acute ischaemic stroke patients after intra-arterial thrombectomy

Breast

Breast-density assessment with hand-held ultrasound: A novel biomarker to assess breast cancer risk and to tailor screening?

Urogenital

Are growth patterns on MRI in small (< 4 cm) solid renal masses useful for predicting benign histology?

Breast

Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of breast cancer: associations between diffusion metrics and histological prognostic factors

Breast

The role of breast tomosynthesis in a predominantly dense breast population at a tertiary breast centre: breast density assessment and diagnostic performance in comparison with MRI

Gastrointestinal

Magnetic resonance with diffusion-weighted imaging improves assessment of focal liver lesions in patients with potentially resectable pancreatic cancer on CT