Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091706

Changes in apparent diffusion coefficients of less than approximately 30% fall into the range of measurement error and, therefore, cannot be confidently detected.

Purpose

To prospectively evaluate the reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in malignant hepatic tumors and to examine the influence of imaging methods, lesion location, and lesion size on the reproducibility of ADC measurement.

Materials and Methods

The institutional review board approved the study protocol, and informed consent was obtained. Forty-nine patients underwent both breath-hold and respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging on a 1.5-T system twice. Two independent readers measured the ADC of the largest malignant hepatic tumor for each patient on each image sets. Mean ADCs were compared between repeated acquisitions and imaging techniques by using the paired t test. Reproducibility of the ADC measurement and interobsever agreement were determined by using 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreement and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The effects of the imaging technique, lesion location, and lesion size on the reproducibility of the ADC measurements were assessed by comparing ICCs by using the z test.

Results

There were no significant differences in the mean ADC between repeated acquisitions for breath-hold ([1.266–1.275] × 10−3 mm2/sec vs [1.285–1.290] × 10−3 mm2/sec; P = .572–.634) or respiratory-triggered ([1.487–1.502] × 10−3 mm2/sec vs [1.421–1.441] × 10−3 mm2/sec; P = .073–.091) DW MR imaging. The mean ADCs measured by using the respiratory-triggered method ([1.421–1.502] × 10−3 mm2/sec) were significantly higher than those measured by using the breath-hold method ([1.266–1.290] × 10−3 mm2/sec) (P ≤ .001). The 95% limits of agreement between ADCs measured on repeated DW images were 28.7%–31.3% of the mean, and those between ADCs measured by two readers were 14.6%–22.5% of the mean. ADC measurement of malignant hepatic tumors tended to be more reproducible for right-lobe than for left-lobe lesions and for larger rather than smaller lesions.

Conclusion

Changes in ADCs of less than approximately 30% fall into the range of measurement error. Imaging technique significantly affected ADCs of malignant hepatic tumors. Lesion location and size are potentially influential on the reproducibility of ADC measurement.

© RSNA, 2010

References

  • 1 Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, Hori M, Tsuda K, Nakamura H. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echoplanar MR imaging for liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173(2):393–398.
  • 2 Taouli B, Vilgrain V, Dumont E, Daire JL, Fan B, Menu Y. Evaluation of liver diffusion isotropy and characterization of focal hepatic lesions with two single-shot echo-planar MR imaging sequences: prospective study in 66 patients. Radiology 2003;226(1):71–78.
  • 3 Bruegel M, Holzapfel K, Gaa J, et al.. Characterization of focal liver lesions by ADC measurements using a respiratory triggered diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar MR imaging technique. Eur Radiol 2008;18(3):477–485.
  • 4 Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, et al.. Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging. Radiology 2008;246(3):812–822.
  • 5 Chen CY, Li CW, Kuo YT, et al.. Early response of hepatocellular carcinoma to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: choline levels and MR diffusion constants—initial experience. Radiology 2006;239(2):448–456.
  • 6 Deng J, Miller FH, Rhee TK, et al.. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for determination of hepatocellular carcinoma response to yttrium-90 radioembolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17(7):1195–1200.
  • 7 Cui Y, Zhang XP, Sun YS, Tang L, Shen L. Apparent diffusion coefficient: potential imaging biomarker for prediction and early detection of response to chemotherapy in hepatic metastases. Radiology 2008;248(3):894–900.
  • 8 Kamel IR, Bluemke DA, Eng J, et al.. The role of functional MR imaging in the assessment of tumor response after chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2006;17(3):505–512.
  • 9 Hamstra DA, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: a biomarker for treatment response in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2007;25(26):4104–4109.
  • 10 Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(6):1622–1635.
  • 11 Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al.. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009;11(2):102–125.
  • 12 Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Fujii H, Minami M. Hepatic pseudo-anisotropy: a specific artifact in hepatic diffusion-weighted images obtained with respiratory triggering. MAGMA 2007;20(4):205–211.
  • 13 Le Bihan D, Poupon C, Amadon A, Lethimonnier F. Artifacts and pitfalls in diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24(3):478–488.
  • 14 Kwee TC, Takahara T, Koh DM, Nievelstein RA, Luijten PR. Comparison and reproducibility of ADC measurements in breathhold, respiratory triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(5):1141–1148.
  • 15 Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Boll DT, Merkle EM. Short- and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Radiology 2009;250(2):459–465.
  • 16 Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Sekiguchi R, Kazama T, Nakajima H. Measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in the liver: is it a reliable index for hepatic disease diagnosis? Radiat Med 2006;24(6):438–444.
  • 17 Dodd GD. An American’s guide to Couinaud’s numbering system. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993;161(3):574–575.
  • 18 Lee SS, Byun JH, Park BJ, et al.. Quantitative analysis of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas: usefulness in characterizing solid pancreatic masses. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28(4):928–936.
  • 19 Büsing KA, Kilian AK, Schaible T, Debus A, Weiss C, Neff KW. Reliability and validity of MR image lung volume measurement in fetuses with congenital diaphragmatic hernia and in vitro lung models. Radiology 2008;246(2):553–561.
  • 20 Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 1979;86(2):420–428.
  • 21 Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;1(8476):307–310.
  • 22 Donner A, Zou G. Testing the equality of dependent intraclass correlation coefficients. Statistician 2002;51(3):367–379.
  • 23 Fanchin R, Taieb J, Lozano DH, Ducot B, Frydman R, Bouyer J. High reproducibility of serum anti-Mullerian hormone measurements suggests a multi-staged follicular secretion and strengthens its role in the assessment of ovarian follicular status. Hum Reprod 2005;20(4):923–927.
  • 24 Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, et al.. Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 2008;249(2):624–630.
  • 25 Mürtz P, Flacke S, Träber F, van den Brink JS, Gieseke J, Schild HH. Abdomen: diffusion-weighted MR imaging with pulse-triggered single-shot sequences. Radiology 2002;224(1):258–264.
  • 26 Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Merkle EM, Boll DT. Effect of field strength and b-value on apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 1.5 and 3 Tesla [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007; 306.
  • 27 Kim SY, Lee SS, Park BW, Kim N, Kim JK, Byun JH. Strategy for reproducible apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement of malignant hepatic tumors: ADC measurement using multiple b-value versus two b-value [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2009; 427.

Article History

Received September 14, 2009; revision requested October 20; revision received November 23; accepted December 15; final version accepted January 11, 2010.
Published online: June 2010
Published in print: June 2010