不同磁共振扩散加权成像模型在大鼠脑内的重复性

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (1500 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的：比较4种磁共振扩散加权成像模型[表观扩散系数（ADC）模型、体素内不相干运动（IVIM）模型、扩散峰度成像（DKI）模型及拉伸指数模型]在大鼠脑内的重复性情况。方法：对14只雄性SD大鼠进行间隔24 h的重复大脑磁共振扩散加权成像扫描，进行4种扩散模型分析，并采用受试者内变异系数和Bland-Altman方法评估重复性情况。结果：ADC模型、DKI模型和拉伸指数模型中扩散率相关参数（ADC、Dapp和DDC）的Cronbach’s alpha均大于0.7，intra-subject CV均小于5%，LA均小于0.15×10-3 mm2/s，其中ADC的LA最小，为0.086×10-3 mm2/s。而IVIM模型中所有参数（D、f和D*）的Cronbach’s alpha都小于0.5，intra-subject CV大于40%，LA大于0.4×10-3 mm2/s。在不同感兴趣区中，纹状体部位ADC值的intra-subject CV和LA最低，分别为2.00%和0.034×10-3 mm2/s，胼胝体部位ADC值的intra-subject CV和LA最高，分别为3.98%和0.085×10-3 mm2/s。结论：大鼠大脑不同磁共振扩散模型的间隔24 h重复性存在差异，ADC模型重复性最好，而IVIM模型最差。大鼠大脑不同部位的ADC值重复性也存在差异，纹状体重复性最好，胼胝体则相对较差。

	服务
	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	卢毅
	陈涛
	彭稳稳
	宋娇
	王雪
	严志汉

关键词 ：磁共振成像, 扩散加权成像, 多模型分析, 重复性研究

Abstract：Objective: To evaluate the repeatability of different magnetic resonance diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) mathematical modelsin the brains of rats, such as the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) model, intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) model, diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) model and stretched exponential model. Methods: There were 14 male Sprague-Dawley rats experienced DWI scanning in 3.0T scanner twice, in 24-hours intervals. The data was analyzed with different diffusion mathematical models. The intra-subject coefficient of variation (intra-subject CV) and Bland-Altman analysis were used to evaluate the repeatability of the experiment. Results: In the ADC model, DKI model and stretched exponential model, the Cronbach’s alpha of these diffusion related parameters (ADC, Dapp and DDC) were less than 5%, intra-subject CV were less than 0.7, and LA were less than 0.15×10-3 mm2/s. Moreover, ADC had the smallest of LA, which was 0.086×10-3 mm2/s. Cronbach’s alpha of all the coefficients of the IVIM model were less than 0.5, intra-subject CV were more than 40%, and LA were greater than 0.4×10-3 mm2/s. Among different regions of Interest, minimum intra-subject CV and LA of ADC were in striatum, respectively: 2.00% and 0.034×10-3 mm2/s. And Corpus callosum had the highest intra-subject CV and LA of ADC, respectively 3.98% and 0.085×10-3 mm2/s. Conclusion: The repetitive analysis results of different diffusion mathematical models, which from the DWI of rat’s brain in a intervals of 24 hours, are significantly different. The repeatability of ADC model is the best, and IVIM model is the worst. In addition, the repeatability of ADC value in different brain ROIs of rats are also significantly different, which shows that striatum has a best repeatability, and corpus callosum is relatively poor.

Key words： magnetic resonance imaging diffusion weighted imaging multiple model analysis repeatability study

收稿日期: 2018-09-11

基金资助:温州市公益性科技计划项目（Y20170825）。

通讯作者: 严志汉，主任医师，教授，博士生导师，Email：zhihanyan@hotmail.com。

作者简介: 卢毅（1991-），男，浙江温州人，住院医师，硕士。

链接本文:

https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/CN/ 或 https://xb.wmu.edu.cn/CN/Y2019/V49/I7/491

[1] CHENEVERT T L, STEGMAN L D, TAYLOR J M, et al. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an early surrogate marker of therapeutic efficacy in brain tumors[J]. J Natl Cancer Inst, 2000, 92(24): 2029-2036.
[2] KAMEL I R, BLUEMKE D A, RAMSEY D, et al. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in estimating tumor necrosis after chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003, 181(3): 708-710.
[3] 陈中伟, 赵悠帆, 叶琼, 等. 计算扩散加权成像对脑肿瘤显示能力的评估[J]. 温州医科大学学报, 2018, 48(10): 769-772.
[4] IIMA M, LE B D. Clinical intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion MR imaging: past, present, and future[J]. Radiology, 2016, 278(1): 13-32.
[5] ROSENKRANTZ A B, PADHANI A R, CHENEVERT T L, et al. Body diffusion kurtosis imaging: Basic principles, applications, and considerations for clinical practice[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015, 42(5): 1190-1202.
[6] KORAL K, MATHIS D, GIMI B, et al. Common pediatric cerebellar tumors: correlation between cell densities and apparent diffusion coefficient metrics[J]. Radiology, 2013, 268(2): 532-537.
[7] PADHANI A R, LIU G, KOH D M, et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations[J]. Neoplasia, 2009, 11(2):102-125.
[8] BAE H, YOSHIDA S, MATSUOKA Y, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient value as a biomarker reflecting morphological and biological features of prostate cancer[J]. Int Urol Nephrol, 2014, 46(3): 555-561.
[9] MAZAHERI Y, VARGAS H A, AKIN O, et al. Reducing the influence of b-value selection on diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate: evaluation of a revised monoexponential model within a clinical setting[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2012, 35(3): 660-668.
[10] YABLONSKIY D A, SUKSTANSKII A L. Theoretical models of the diffusion weighted MR signal[J]. NMR Biomed, 2010, 23(7): 661-681.
[11] KOH D M, BLACKLEDGE M, COLLINS D J, et al. Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficients of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial[J]. Eur Radiol, 2009, 19(11):2728-2738.
[12] DORRIUS M D, DIJKSTRA H, OUDKERK M, et al. Effect of b value and pre-admission of contrast on diagnostic accuracy of 1.5-T breast DWI: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Radiol, 2014, 24(11): 2835-2847.
[13] KURU T H, ROETHKE M C, STIELTJES B, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion imaging in prostate cancer-what does it add?[J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2014, 38(4): 558-564.
[14] DöPFERT J, LEMKE A, WEIDNER A, et al. Investigation of prostate cancer using diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2011, 29(8): 1053-1058.
[15] MAZZONILN, LUCARINI S, CHITI S, et al. Diffusion-weighted signal models in healthy and cancerous peripheral prostate tissues: comparison of outcomes obtained at different b-values[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2014, 39(3): 512-518.
[16] FOURNET G, LI J R, CERJANIC A M, et al. A two-pool model to describe the IVIM cerebral perfusion[J]. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab, 2017, 37(8): 2987-3000.
[17] LIU L, MA C, LI J, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic performances of three techniques of ROI placement for ADC measurements in pancreatic adenocarcinoma[J]. Acad Radiol, 2015, 22(11): 1385-1392.