mono和bi拟合方法对乳腺病变IVIM参数的影响

doi:10.12117/jccmi.2019.02.006

摘要
图/表
参考文献(16)
相关文章 (15)

全文: PDF (0 KB) HTML (1 KB)
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要目的：探讨mono、bi两种拟合方法测得体素内不相干运动（Intravoxel incoherent motion，IVIM）参数的差异及在鉴别乳腺良恶性病变中的诊断价值。方法：分析54例患者共58个乳腺病灶，其中良性病灶27个，恶性病灶31个，应用IVIM后处理软件测量mono、bi两种拟合方法测得D值、D*值及f值；应用SPSS 22.0统计软件比较mono、bi两种拟合方法测得乳腺良恶性病变各参数CV大小；比较mono、bi两种拟合方法测得乳腺良恶性病变IVIM参数的差异及鉴别乳腺良恶性病变的诊断效能。结果：mono拟合方法测得良恶性病变的IVIM参数CV小于bi；mono、bi两种拟合方法测得乳腺良恶性病变IVIM参数D值及D*值均具有统计学差异，f值没有统计学差异；乳腺良恶性病变通过mono拟合方法获得IVIM参数D及D*值具有统计学差异，bi拟合方法仅有D值存在统计学差异；在鉴别乳腺良恶性方面，mono拟合方法测得D值曲线下面积大于bi拟合方法。结论：乳腺病变mono拟合方法测得IVIM参数优于bi拟合方法，mono拟合方法更加适合乳腺病变IVIM参数测量。

	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
	魏清顺
	卢冬梅
	刘瑜琳
	叶建军
	牛娟琴
	陈纲
	杨晓萍

关键词 ：乳腺疾病, 磁共振成像

Abstract：Objective: To investigate the difference of parameters from mono and bi based intravoxel incoherent motion(IVIM)-deprived algorithm in breast lesions, and the value in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods: IVIM-MR parameters from a total of 58 breast lesions(27 benign and 31 malignant lesions) were taken from 54 female, including D value, D* value and f value generated and measured by two fitting methods. SPSS 22.0 statistical software was used to compare the coefficient of variation of the parameters measured by two fitting methods, and investigated the difference between mono and bi based IVIM fitting methods. The diagnostic performance in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions was also compared between mono and bi fitting methods. Results: The coefficient of variation of IVIM parameters by mono fitting method was less than bi from breast lesions. There were significant differences for D and D* values between mono and bi in breast lesions, but the f value was not. The values of D and D* were statistically different by mono fitting method in benign and malignant breast lesions, and the D values on bi fitting method was also so. The area under curve for D value measured by mono fitting method was larger than bi in differentiating benign and malignant breast lesions. Conclusion: Compared with the bi fitting method, mono fitting method is more valuable for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions, and is more suitable for IVIM parameter measurement of breast lesions.

Key words： Breast diseases Magnetic resonance imaging

收稿日期: 2018-02-24

PACS:	Ｒ655.8
	Ｒ445.2

基金资助: 本研究受甘肃省自然科学基金项目（编号1606RJZA160）资助。

通讯作者: 杨晓萍，中国人民解放军联勤保障部队第九四○医院影像诊断中心，730050。E-mail：lwyxp_zxl@sohu.com

作者简介: 魏清顺（1990-），男，甘肃兰州人，在读硕士研究生。E-mail：weiqsh15@126.com

引用本文:

魏清顺，卢冬梅，刘瑜琳，叶建军，牛娟琴，陈纲，杨晓萍. mono和bi拟合方法对乳腺病变IVIM参数的影响[J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志, 2019, 30(2): 98-101.
WEI Qing-shun, LU Dong-mei, LIU Yu-lin, YE Jian-jun, NIU Juan-qin, CHEN Gang, YANG Xiao-ping. Comparison of mono and bi fitting method based IVIM imaging in breast lesions. JOURNAL OF CHINA MEDICAL IMAGING, 2019, 30(2): 98-101.

链接本文:

http://www.jccmi.com.cn/CN/10.12117/jccmi.2019.02.006 或 http://www.jccmi.com.cn/CN/Y2019/V30/I2/98

[1]Bailey C, Siow B, Panagiotaki E, et al. Microstructural models for diffusion MRI in breast cancer and surrounding stroma: an ex vivo study[J]. NMR Biomed, 2017, 30(2): e367.
[2]Liu C, Liang C, Liu Z, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion(IVIM) in evaluation of breast lesions: Comparison with conventional DWI[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2013, 82(12): 782-789.
[3]Iima M, Le Bihan D. Clinical Intravoxel Incoherent Motion and Diffusion MR Imaging: Past, Present, and Future[J]. Radiology, 2016, 278(1): 13-32.
[4]Sigmund EE, Cho GY, Kim S, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion(IVIM) imaging of tumor microenvironment in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2011, 65(5): 1437-1447.
[5]张亮，陈军，许启仲，等. MRI对乳腺癌诊断价值的Meta分析[J]. 临床放射学杂志，2014，33（12）：1846-1850.
[6]傅文悦，朱广辉. 超声、钼靶、MRI对乳腺癌诊断价值的Meta分析[J]. 功能与分子医学影像学：电子版，2017，6（2）：1189-1194.
[7]闵朋，彭虹，江广斌. 磁共振扩散加权成像鉴别诊断良恶性乳腺肿瘤价值的Meta分析[J]. 现代肿瘤医学，2015，23（22）：3316-3319.
[8]罗马，张卫东. 体素内不相干运动双指数模型的技术现况[J]. 磁共振成像，2017，8（4）：265-269.
[9]Yuan J, Yeung DK, Mok GS, et al. Non-Gaussian analysis of diffusion weighted imaging in head and neck at 3T: a pilot study in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(1): e87024.
[10]Yan R, Pang HP, Feng XY, et al. Non-Gaussian diffusion MR imaging of glioma: comparisons of multiple diffusion parameters and correlation with histologic grade and MIB-1(Ki-67 labeling) index[J]. Neuroradiology, 2016, 58(2): 121-132.
[11]Sumi M, Van Cauteren M, Sumi T, et al. Salivary gland tumors: use of intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for assessment of diffusion and perfusion for the differentiation of benign from malignant tumors[J]. Radiology, 2012, 263(3): 770-777.
[12]Zhang G, Wang S, Wen D, et al. Comparison of non-Gaussian and Gaussian diffusion models of diffusion weighted imaging of rectal cancer at 3.0 T MRI[J]. Sci Rep, 2016, 6: 38782.
[13]Koh DM, Collins DJ, Orton MR. Intravoxel incoherent motion in body diffusion-weighted MRI: reality and challenges[J]. Am J Roentgenol, 2011, 196(6): 1351-1361.
[14]郭吉敏，刘春霖，曹满瑞，等. 体素内不相干运动双指数模型评价乳腺肿块样病变[J]. 中国医学影像技术，2015，31（7）：1037-1040.
[15]Pang Y, Turkbey B, Bernardo M, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging for prostate cancer: an evaluation of perfusion fraction and diffusion coefficient derived from different b-value combinations[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2013, 69(2): 553-562.
[16]Bisdas S, Braun C, Skardelly M, et al. Correlative assessment of tumor microcirculation using contrast-enhanced perfusion MRI and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI: is there a link between them?[J]. NMR Biomed, 2014, 27(10): 1184-1191.