J Korean Soc Magn Reson Med.  2014 Mar;18(1):25-33. 10.13104/jksmrm.2014.18.1.25.

Diffusion-weighted and Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MRI of Metastatic Bone Tumors: Correlation of the Apparent Diffusion Coefficient, K(trans) and ve values

• Koo JH
• Yoon YC
• Kim JH

• KMID: 1683777
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.13104/jksmrm.2014.18.1.25

Abstract

PURPOSE
To investigate whether quantitative parameters derived from Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) correlate with those of Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirteen patients with pathologically or clinically proven bony metastasis who had undergone MRI prior to treatment were included. The voxel size was 1.367 x 1.367 x 5 mm. A dominant tumor was selected and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and DCE-MRI parameters were obtained by matching voxels. DCE-MRI data were analyzed yielding estimates of K(trans) (volume transfer constant) and ve. (extravascular extracellular volume fraction). Statistical analysis of ADC, K(trans), and ve value was conducted using Pearson correlation analyses.
RESULTS
Fifteen lesions in pelvic bones were evaluated. Of these, 11 showed a statistically significant correlation (P < 0.05) between ADC and K(trans). The ADC and K(trans) were inversely related in 7 lesions and positively related in 4 lesions. This did not depend on the primary cancer or site of metastasis. The ADC and ve of 9 lesions correlated significantly. Of these, 4 lesions were inversely related and 5 lesions were positively related.
CONCLUSION
Unlike our theoretic hypothesis, there was no consistent correlation between ADC values and K(trans) or between ADC values and ve in metastatic bone tumors.

Keyword

Metastatic bone tumors; Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI); DCE-MRI; ADC; K(trans); v(e)

MeSH Terms

Diffusion*
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*
Neoplasm Metastasis
Pelvic Bones

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Region of interest (ROI) drawn in Ktrans map (a), ADC map (b) and scatterplot of a voxel-by-voxel comparison of ADC and Ktrans (c) from the same patient. A 42-year-old breast cancer patient had a metastatic bone lesion in right iliac bone. In the scatterplot (c), a total of 6217 voxels were evaluated with an inverse relationship between the 2 parameters with a Pearson correlation coefficient of -0.525 and p value of < 0.0001.

• 

  Fig. 2 Ktrans map (a), ADC map (b), and scatterplot of a voxel-by-voxel comparison of ADC and Ktrans (c) from a 47-year-old lung cancer patient. A total of 150 voxels were evaluated. A positive correlation was demonstrated between the 2 parameters with a correlation coefficient of 0.579 and a significant p-value of < 0.0001.

• 

  Fig. 3 Ktrans map (a), ADC map (b), and scatterplot of a voxel-by-voxel comparison of ADC and Ktrans (c) from the results of a 69-year-old lung cancer patient. A total of 235 voxels were evaluated. The results showed no evidence of a linear relationship between the parameters. The correlation coefficient was 0.007 with a p-value of 0.910.

• 

  Fig. 4 (a) Scatterplot of a comparison of median ADC and Ktrans values. (b) Scatterplot of a comparison of median ADC and ve values.

Reference

1. Anderson AW, Xie J, Pizzonia J, Bronen RA, Spencer DD, Gore JC. Effects of cell volume fraction changes on apparent diffusion in human cells. Magn Reson Imaging. 2000; 18:689–695.

2. Tofts PS, Brix G, Buckley DL, et al. Estimating kinetic parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced T(1)-weighted MRI of a diffusable tracer: standardized quantities and symbols. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999; 10:223–232.

3. Zhang N, Zhang L, Qiu B, Meng L, Wang X, Hou BL. Correlation of volume transfer coefficient K(trans) with histopathologic grades of gliomas. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012; 36:355–363.

4. Yankeelov TE, Gore JC. Dynamic Contrast Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Oncology: Theory, Data Acquisition, Analysis, and Examples. Curr Med Imaging Rev. 2009; 3:91–107.

5. Messiou C, Collins DJ, Morgan VA, Desouza NM. Optimising diffusion weighted MRI for imaging metastatic and myeloma bone disease and assessing reproducibility. Eur Radiol. 2011; 21:1713–1718.

6. Huang W, Tudorica LA, Li X, et al. Discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions by using shutter-speed dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2011; 261:394–403.

7. Thoeny HC, Forstner R, De Keyzer F. Genitourinary applications of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the pelvis. Radiology. 2012; 263:326–342.

8. Ginat DT, Mangla R, Yeaney G, Johnson M, Ekholm S. Diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign from malignant skull lesions and correlation with cell density. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012; 198:W597–W601.

9. Onur MR, Cicekci M, Kayali A, Poyraz AK, Kocakoc E. The role of ADC measurement in differential diagnosis of focal hepatic lesions. Eur J Radiol. 2012; 81:e171–e176.

10. Vermoolen MA, Kwee TC, Nievelstein RA. Apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in the differentiation between benign and malignant lesions: a systematic review. Insights Imaging. 2012; 3:395–409.

11. Langer DL, van der Kwast TH, Evans AJ, et al. Prostate tissue composition and MR measurements: investigating the relationships between ADC, T2, K(trans), v(e), and corresponding histologic features. Radiology. 2010; 255:485–494.

12. Kim YS, Lim HK, Kim JH, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging predicts immediate therapeutic response of magnetic resonance-guided high-intensity focused ultrasound ablation of symptomatic uterine fibroids. Invest Radiol. 2011; 46:639–647.

13. Fram EK, Herfkens RJ, Johnson GA, et al. Rapid calculation of T1 using variable flip angle gradient refocused imaging. Magn Reson Imaging. 1987; 5:201–208.

14. Mills SJ, Soh C, Rose CJ, et al. Candidate biomarkers of extravascular extracellular space: a direct comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging--derived measurement of the volume of the extravascular extracellular space in glioblastoma multiforme. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010; 31:549–553.

15. Yang C, Stadler WM, Karczmar GS, Milosevic M, Yeung I, Haider MA. Comparison of quantitative parameters in cervix cancer measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and CT. Magn Reson Med. 2010; 63:1601–1609.

16. Oto A, Yang C, Kayhan A, et al. Diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of prostate cancer: correlation of quantitative MR parameters with Gleason score and tumor angiogenesis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011; 197:1382–1390.

17. Yankeelov TE, Lepage M, Chakravarthy A, et al. Integration of quantitative DCE-MRI and ADC mapping to monitor treatment response in human breast cancer: initial results. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007; 25:1–13.

18. Gore JC, Xu J, Colvin DC, Yankeelov TE, Parsons EC, Does MD. Characterization of tissue structure at varying length scales using temporal diffusion spectroscopy. NMR Biomed. 2010; 23:745–756.

19. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol. 2001; 56:607–620.

20. Arlinghaus LR, Li X, Rahman AR, et al. On the relationship between the apparent diffusion coefficient and extravascular extracellular volume fraction in human breast cancer. Magn Reson Imaging. 2011; 29:630–638.

21. Zhu XP, Li KL, Kamaly-Asl ID, et al. Quantification of endothelial permeability, leakage space, and blood volume in brain tumors using combined T1 and T2* contrast-enhanced dynamic MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000; 11:575–558.

22. Chu JP, Mak HK, Yau KK, et al. Pilot study on evaluation of any correlation between MR perfusion (Ktrans) and diffusion (apparent diffusion coefficient) parameters in brain tumors at 3 Tesla. Cancer Imaging. 2012; 12:1–6.