Abstract
Objective: To investigate whether the histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be predicted using the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study group consisted of 80 patients with 85 surgically resected HCCs who underwent preoperative MRI exams including diffusion-weighted imaging. The tumors were histologically classified into five groups as follows: five well (w-), 17 well to moderately (wm-), 37 moderately (m-), 16 moderately to poorly (mp-), and 10 poorly (p-) differentiated HCCs. For ADC measurement of each HCC, the largest possible region of interest was placed on the solid region on the ADC map where ADC was considered to be the lowest. The average ADCs of the five histological grades were compared using Spearman's rank correlation test and Student's t-test, and the diagnostic performance of ADC for mp- and p-HCCs was also evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic-based positive test. Results: The average ADC of p-HCC (0.76 ± 0.10 × 10 -3 mm 2/s) was significantly lower than those of the other four histological grades. The average ADC of mp-HCCs (0.99 ± 0.20 × 10 -3 mm 2/s) was significantly lower than those of w-, wm- and m-HCCs. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy, when an ADC of 0.972 or lower was considered an indicator of mp- and p-HCCs, were 73.1%, 72.9%, 54.3%, 86.0% and 72.9%, respectively. Conclusion: ADCs of mp- and p-HCCs were lower than those of w-, wm- and m-HCCs. ADC can contribute to radiological diagnosis of poorly differentiated components in HCCs.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | e29-e33 |
| Journal | European Journal of Radiology |
| Volume | 80 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Nov 1 2011 |
Fingerprint
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
Cite this
Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma. / Nishie, Akihiro; Tajima, Tsuyoshi; Asayama, Yoshiki; Ishigami, Kousei; Kakihara, Daisuke; Nakayama, Tomohiro; Takayama, Yukihisa; Okamoto, Daisuke; Fujita, Nobuhiro; Taketomi, Akinobu; Yoshimitsu, Kengo; Honda, Hiroshi.
In: European Journal of Radiology, Vol. 80, No. 2, 01.11.2011, p. e29-e33.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnostic performance of apparent diffusion coefficient for predicting histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma
AU - Nishie, Akihiro
AU - Tajima, Tsuyoshi
AU - Asayama, Yoshiki
AU - Ishigami, Kousei
AU - Kakihara, Daisuke
AU - Nakayama, Tomohiro
AU - Takayama, Yukihisa
AU - Okamoto, Daisuke
AU - Fujita, Nobuhiro
AU - Taketomi, Akinobu
AU - Yoshimitsu, Kengo
AU - Honda, Hiroshi
PY - 2011/11/1
Y1 - 2011/11/1
N2 - Objective: To investigate whether the histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be predicted using the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study group consisted of 80 patients with 85 surgically resected HCCs who underwent preoperative MRI exams including diffusion-weighted imaging. The tumors were histologically classified into five groups as follows: five well (w-), 17 well to moderately (wm-), 37 moderately (m-), 16 moderately to poorly (mp-), and 10 poorly (p-) differentiated HCCs. For ADC measurement of each HCC, the largest possible region of interest was placed on the solid region on the ADC map where ADC was considered to be the lowest. The average ADCs of the five histological grades were compared using Spearman's rank correlation test and Student's t-test, and the diagnostic performance of ADC for mp- and p-HCCs was also evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic-based positive test. Results: The average ADC of p-HCC (0.76 ± 0.10 × 10 -3 mm 2/s) was significantly lower than those of the other four histological grades. The average ADC of mp-HCCs (0.99 ± 0.20 × 10 -3 mm 2/s) was significantly lower than those of w-, wm- and m-HCCs. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy, when an ADC of 0.972 or lower was considered an indicator of mp- and p-HCCs, were 73.1%, 72.9%, 54.3%, 86.0% and 72.9%, respectively. Conclusion: ADCs of mp- and p-HCCs were lower than those of w-, wm- and m-HCCs. ADC can contribute to radiological diagnosis of poorly differentiated components in HCCs.
AB - Objective: To investigate whether the histological grade of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can be predicted using the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study group consisted of 80 patients with 85 surgically resected HCCs who underwent preoperative MRI exams including diffusion-weighted imaging. The tumors were histologically classified into five groups as follows: five well (w-), 17 well to moderately (wm-), 37 moderately (m-), 16 moderately to poorly (mp-), and 10 poorly (p-) differentiated HCCs. For ADC measurement of each HCC, the largest possible region of interest was placed on the solid region on the ADC map where ADC was considered to be the lowest. The average ADCs of the five histological grades were compared using Spearman's rank correlation test and Student's t-test, and the diagnostic performance of ADC for mp- and p-HCCs was also evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic-based positive test. Results: The average ADC of p-HCC (0.76 ± 0.10 × 10 -3 mm 2/s) was significantly lower than those of the other four histological grades. The average ADC of mp-HCCs (0.99 ± 0.20 × 10 -3 mm 2/s) was significantly lower than those of w-, wm- and m-HCCs. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy, when an ADC of 0.972 or lower was considered an indicator of mp- and p-HCCs, were 73.1%, 72.9%, 54.3%, 86.0% and 72.9%, respectively. Conclusion: ADCs of mp- and p-HCCs were lower than those of w-, wm- and m-HCCs. ADC can contribute to radiological diagnosis of poorly differentiated components in HCCs.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053652885&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80053652885&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.019
DO - 10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.06.019
M3 - Article
C2 - 20619566
AN - SCOPUS:80053652885
VL - 80
SP - e29-e33
JO - European Journal of Radiology
JF - European Journal of Radiology
SN - 0720-048X
IS - 2
ER -