• Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 1  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 11-15

Comparison of Intra-voxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient in the Evaluation of Focal Malignant Liver Masses

1 Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan, China
2 Department of Radiology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, USA
3 Department of MR Modality, GE Healthcare (China), Beijing, China

Correspondence Address:
Prof. Hailiang Li
Department of Radiology, The Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Henan Cancer Hospital, No. 127, Dongming Road, Zhengzhou 450008, Henan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

Rights and PermissionsRights and Permissions

Aim: To compare the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) derived from conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), and parameters derived from intra-voxel incoherent motion (IVIM) diffusion, in the differentiation of common focal malignant liver masses. Methods: DWI of 53 patients with 85 focal liver masses (47 hepatocellular cancers [HCCs], 18 cholangiocarcinomas, and 20 metastases) were recruited to receive a 3.0T MR scanner with 2 b values (0, 700 s/mm [2]) to measure the ADC values and with 7 b values (0, 50, 100, 250, 500, 750, 1000 s/mm [2] ) to measure IVIM derived parameters: true diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion related diffusion coefficient (D*) and perfusion fraction (f). The mean of each parameter was compared by the Dunnett multiple comparison test. Results: Both ADC and D were significantly higher in cholangiocarcinomas than in HCCs (ADC: 1.49 ± 0.27 × 10−3 vs. 1.20 ± 0.26 × 10−3 mm 2 /s and D: 0.94 ± 0.17 × 10−3 vs. 0.53 ± 0.23 × 10−3 mm 2 /s, respectively; P = 0.002 and P < 0.001) with D providing higher areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.936 and ADC 0.794. Neither ADC nor IVIM derived parameters could differentiate metastases from HCCs and cholangiocarcinomas. Conclusion: D improved the accuracy of differentiating HCCs and cholangiocarcinomas compared to ADC.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded250    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal