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

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
European Spine Journal
Published in: European Spine Journal 5/2020

01-05-2020 | Spinal Tumor | Original Article

Use of monoexponential diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI for the differentiation of spinal tumors

Authors: Jiahui Zhang, Yongye Chen, Enlong Zhang, Nan Li, Huishu Yuan, Ning Lang

Published in: European Spine Journal | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To explore the diagnostic value of monoexponential diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI for differentiating between spinal malignant and non-malignant tumors lacking typical imaging signs and correlation between the parameters of the three models.

Methods

DWI, DKI, and DCE-MRI examinations were performed in 39 and 27 cases of spinal malignant and non-malignant tumors, respectively. Two radiologists independently evaluated apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), mean diffusivity (MD), and mean kurtosis (MK) of the DWI and DKI models, and volume transfer constant (Ktrans), rate constant (kep), and extracellular extravascular volume ratio (ve) of the DCE-MRI model for post-processing analyses. Statistical differences of parameters were compared using an independent sample t test. The sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were determined. Pearson correlation analysis was used to evaluate the correlation between these parameters.

Results

ADC, MD, and ve were significantly lower, while MK and kep were significantly higher for spinal malignant tumors than for non-malignant tumors. The MK had the highest area under the ROC curve of 0.940 and sensitivity (96.3%). Ve was weakly positively correlated with ADC (r = 0.468) and MD (r = 0.363) and weakly negatively correlated with MK (r = −0.469). kep was weakly positively correlated with MK (r = 0.375). Ktrans was weakly positively correlated with ADC (r = 0.325).

Conclusions

Monoexponential DWI, DKI, and DCE-MRI have potential value in the differentiation of spinal malignant from non-malignant tumors lacking typical imaging signs, and there is a certain correlation between the parameters of the three models.

Graphic abstract

These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Zambo I, Veselý K (2014) WHO classification of tumours of soft tissue and bone 2013: the main changes compared to the 3rd edition. Cesk Patol 50(2):64–70PubMed
2.
Wang Fengxian, Chu Chen, Zhao Cheng et al (2019) Diffusion kurtosis imaging in sacroiliitis to evaluate the activity of ankylosing spondylitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 49(1):101–108CrossRefPubMed
3.
Hui ES, Cheung MM, Qi L et al (2008) Towards better MR characterization of neural tissues using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis. Neurimage 42(1):122–134CrossRef
4.
Surov A, Nagata S, Razek AA, Tirumani SH, Wienke A, Kahn T (2015) Comparison of ADC values in different malignancies of the skeletal musculature: a multicentric analysis. Skelet Radiol 44(7):995–1000CrossRef
5.
Ahlawat S, Khandheria P, Subhawong TK, Fayad LM (2015) Differentiation of benign and malignant skeletal lesions with quantitative diffusion weighted MRI at 3T. Eur J Radiol 84(6):1091–1097CrossRefPubMed
6.
Surov A, Behrmann C (2014) Diffusion-weighted imaging of skeletal muscle lymphoma. Skelet Radiol 43(7):899–903CrossRef
7.
Jenson JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A et al (2005) Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 53(6):1432–1440CrossRef
8.
Bai Y, Lin YS, Tian J (2016) Grading of gliomas by using monoexponential, biexponential, and stretched exponential diffusion weighted MR imaging and diffusion kurtosis MR imaging. Radiology 278(2):496–504CrossRefPubMed
9.
Zhu L, Pan ZL, Ma Q et al (2017) Diffusion kurtosis imaging study of rectal adenocarcinoma associated with histopathologic prognostic factors: preliminary findings. Radiology 284(1):66–76CrossRefPubMed
10.
Sun K, Chen X, Chai W et al (2015) Breast cancer: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging-diagnostic accuracy and correlation with clinical-pathologic factors. Radiology 277(1):46–55CrossRefPubMed
11.
Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E et al (2014) Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 24(6):1197–1203CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ogawa Masaki, Kan Hirohito, Arai Nobuyuki et al (2019) Differentiation between malignant and benign musculoskeletal tumors using diffusion kurtosis imaging. Skelet Radiol 48(2):285–292CrossRef
13.
Zheng D, Chen Y, Chen Y et al (2014) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a preliminary study of the correlations between quantitative parameters and clinical stage. J Magn Reson Imaging 39(4):940–948CrossRefPubMed
14.
Saha A, Peck KK, Lis E et al (2014) Magnetic resonance perfusion characteristics of hypervascular renal and hypovascular prostate spinal metastases: clinical utilities and implications. Spine 39(24):E1433–E1440CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Khadem NR, Karimi S, Peck KK et al (2012) Characterizing hypervascular and hypovascular metastases and normal bone marrow of the spine using dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 33(11):2178–2185CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Lang N, Su MY, Yu HJ et al (2013) Differentiation of myeloma and metastatic cancer in the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Imaging 31(8):1285–1291CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Lang N, Su MY, Xing X et al (2017) Morphological and dynamic contrast enhanced MR imaging features for the differentiation of chordoma and giant cell tumors in the axial skeleton. J Magn Reson Imaging 45(4):1068–1075CrossRefPubMed
18.
Lang N, Su MY, Yu HJ et al (2015) Differentiation of tuberculosis and metastatic cancer in the spine using dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Spine J 24(8):1729–1737CrossRefPubMed
19.
Tofts PS (1997) Modeling tracer kinetics in dynamic Gd-DTPA MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 7(1):91–101CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hatakenaka M, Soeda H, Yabuuchi H et al (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci 7(1):23–29CrossRefPubMed
21.
Hui ES, Cheung MM, Qi L et al (2008) Advanced MR diffusion characterization of neural tissue using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc 2008:3941–3944
22.
Huang W, Chen YY, Fedorov A et al (2016) The impact of arterial input function determination variations on prostate dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging pharmacokinetic modeling: a multicenter data analysis challenge. Tomography 2(1):56–66CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
23.
Hu H, Xu XQ, Liu H et al (2017) Orbital benign and malignant lymphoproliferative disorders: differentiation using semi-quantitative and quantitative analysis of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 88:88–94CrossRefPubMed
24.
Park M, Kim J, Choi YS et al (2016) Application of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters for differentiating squamous cell carcinoma and malignant lymphoma of the oropharynx. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206(2):401–407CrossRefPubMed
25.
Haradome K, Haradome H, Usui Y et al (2014) Orbital lymphoproliferative disorders (OLPDs): value of MR imaging for differentiating orbital lymphoma from benign OPLDs. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 35(10):1976–1982CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
Li Ting, Tao Yu, Li Lyu et al (2018) Use of diffusion kurtosis imaging and quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the differentiation of breast tumors. J Magn Reson Imaging 48(5):1358–1366CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Use of monoexponential diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI for the differentiation of spinal tumors
Authors
Jiahui Zhang
Yongye Chen
Enlong Zhang
Nan Li
Huishu Yuan
Ning Lang
Publication date
01-05-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keyword
Spinal Tumor
Published in
European Spine Journal / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0940-6719
Electronic ISSN: 1432-0932
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-020-06330-w

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

European Spine Journal 5/2020 Go to the issue

Original Article

Diagnostic value and clinical significance of magnetic resonance imaging with the FS-PD-TSE sequence in diagnosing lumbar cartilaginous endplate failure

Original Article

Developmental sacral morphology: MR study from infancy to skeletal maturity

Original Article

Characteristics of vertebral CT Hounsfield units in elderly patients with acute vertebral fragility fractures

Letter to the Editor

Spinal Taenia solium cysticercosis

Original Article

Relationship between the laminectomy extension and spinal cord injury caused by acute spinal shortening: goat in vivo experiment

Letter to the Editor

Letter to Editor concerning "Diagnostic accuracy of whole spine magnetic resonance imaging in spinal tuberculosis validated through tissue studies" by Kanna RM, et al. (Eur Spine J; 28 [2019]:3003–3010)