Advertisement

Diffusion kurtosis imaging to assess correlations with clinicopathologic factors for bladder cancer: a comparison between the multi-b value method and the tensor method

  • Fang Wang
  • Hai-Ge Chen
  • Rui-Yun Zhang
  • Di Jin
  • Shuai-Shuai Xu
  • Guang-Yu WuEmail author
  • Jian-Rong XuEmail author
Urogenital
  • 17 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) in differentiating low-grade from high-grade tumors and evaluating the aggressiveness of bladder cancer.

Methods

From January 2017 to July 2017, 35 patients (28 males, 7 females; mean age 63 ± 9 years) diagnosed with bladder cancer underwent diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with two types of DKI protocols: (1) multi-b value ranging from 0 to 2000 s/mm2 to obtain mean diffusivity/kurtosis (MDb/MKb) and (2) the tensor method with 32 directions with 3 b values (0, 1000, and 2000s/mm2) to obtain mean/axial/radial diffusivity (MDt/Da/Dr), mean/axial/radial kurtosis (MKt/Ka/Kr), and fractional anisotropy (FA) before radical cystectomy. Comparisons between the low- and high-grade groups, non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), and muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) were performed with the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs).

Results

The MKt and Kr values were significantly (p = 0.017 and p = 0.048) higher in patients with high-grade bladder tumors than in those with low-grade tumors. The MKt, Kr, and MKb values were significantly (p = 0.022, p = 0.000, and p = 0.044, respectively) higher in patients with MIBC than in those with NMIBC, while no significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in other values. The AUC of Kr (0.883) was the largest and was significantly higher than those of other metrics (all p < 0.05) for differentiating MIBC from NMIBC, with a sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 91.7%, respectively.

Conclusions

Kurtosis metrics performed better than diffusion metrics in differentiating MIBC from NMIBC, and directional kurtosis and Kr metrics may also have great potential in providing additional information regarding bladder cancer invasiveness.

Key Points

Kurtosis metrics performed better than diffusion metrics in differentiating muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) from non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).

Directional kurtosis can provide additional directional microstructural information regarding bladder cancer invasiveness.

Keywords

Cystectomy Urinary bladder neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion tensor imaging 

Abbreviations

ADC

Apparent diffusion coefficient

AUC

Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve

CLLS

Constrained linear least-square

Da

Axial diffusivity

DKT

Diffusion kurtosis tensor

Dr.

Radial diffusivity

DTI

Diffusion tensor imaging

DWI

Diffusion-weighted imaging

FA

Fractional anisotropy

ICC

Intraclass correlation coefficient

Ka

Axial kurtosis

Kr

Radial kurtosis

MIBC

Muscle-invasive bladder cancer

MK

Mean kurtosis

MRI

Magnetic resonance imaging

NMIBC

Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer

ROC

Receiver operator characteristic

TUR

Transurethral resection

Notes

Funding

This study has received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Youth Program Nos. 81601487, 81672514).

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Jian-Rong Xu.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects (patients) in this study.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Study subjects or cohorts overlap

Study subjects or cohorts overlap have not been published previously and not under consideration for publication elsewhere, in whole or in part.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E (2010) Cancer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 60:277–300Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rabie E, Faeghi F, Izadpanahi MH, Dayani MA (2016) Role of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in staging of bladder cancer. J Clin Diagn Res 10:TC01–TC05Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Takeuchi M, Sasaki S, Ito M et al (2009) Urinary bladder cancer: diffusion-weighted MR imaging--accuracy for diagnosing T stage and estimating histologic grade. Radiology 251:112–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Spieler B, Melamed J, Taneja SS, Huang WC (2012) High-grade bladder cancer: association of the apparent diffusion coefficient with metastatic disease: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:1478–1483Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dağgülli M, Onur MR, Fırdolaş F, Onur R, Kocakoç E, Orhan İ (2011) Role of diffusion MRI and apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in the diagnosis, staging and pathological classification of bladder tumors. Urol Int 87:346–352Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Takeuchi M, Sasaki S, Naiki T et al (2013) MR imaging of urinary bladder cancer for T-staging: a review and a pictorial essay of diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:1299–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kobayashi S, Koga F, Kajino K et al (2014) Apparent diffusion coefficient value reflects invasive and proliferative potential of bladder cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 39:172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    El-Assmy A, Abou-El-Ghar ME, Refaie HF, Mosbah A, El-Diasty T (2012) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in follow-up of superficial urinary bladder carcinoma after transurethral resection: initial experience. BJU Int 110:E622–E627Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, Lu H, Kaczynski K (2005) Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 53:1432–1440Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tabesh A, Jensen JH, Ardekani BA, Helpern JA (2011) Estimation of tensors and tensor-derived measures in diffusional kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 65:823–836Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jensen JH, Helpern JA (2010) MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion by kurtosis analysis. NMR Biomed 23:698–710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O'Brien T, Cranston D, Fuggle S, Bicknell R, Harris AL (1995) Different angiogenic pathways characterize superficial and invasive bladder cancer. Cancer Res 55:510–513Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J et al (2012) Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading. Radiology 263:492–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tietze A, Hansen MB, Østergaard L et al (2015) Mean diffusional kurtosis in patients with glioma: initial results with a fast imaging method in a clinical setting. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 36:1472–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    May M, Brookman-Amissah S, Roigas J et al (2010) Prognostic accuracy of individual uropathologists in noninvasive urinary bladder carcinoma: a multicentre study comparing the 1973 and 2004 World Health Organisation classifications. Eur Urol 57:850–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nogueira L, Brandão S, Matos E et al (2014) Application of the diffusion kurtosis model for the study of breast lesions. Eur Radiol 24:1197–1203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Suo S, Chen X, Wu L et al (2014) Non-Gaussian water diffusion kurtosis imaging of prostate cancer. Magn Reson Imaging 32:421–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Sigmund EE, Johnson G et al (2012) Prostate cancer: feasibility and preliminary experience of a diffusional kurtosis model for detection and assessment of aggressiveness of peripheral zone cancer. Radiology 264:126–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roethke MC, Kuder TA, Kuru TH et al (2015) Evaluation of diffusion kurtosis imaging versus standard diffusion imaging for detection and grading of peripheral zone prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 50:483–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suo S, Chen X, Ji X et al (2015) Investigation of the non-Gaussian water diffusion properties in bladder cancer using diffusion kurtosis imaging: a preliminary study. J Comput Assist Tomogr 39:281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jensen JH, Falangola MF, Hu C et al (2011) Preliminary observations of increased diffusional kurtosis in human brain following recent cerebral infarction. NMR Biomed 24:452–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pentang G, Lanzman RS, Heusch P et al (2014) Diffusion kurtosis imaging of the human kidney: a feasibility study. Magn Reson Imaging 32:413–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Veraart J, Poot DH, Van Hecke W et al (2011) More accurate estimation of diffusion tensor parameters using diffusion kurtosis imaging. Magn Reson Med 65:138–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Quentin M, Pentang G, Schimmöller L et al (2014) Feasibility of diffusional kurtosis tensor imaging in prostate MRI for the assessment of prostate cancer: preliminary results. Magn Reson Imaging 32:880–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Camp N, Blockx I, Verhoye M et al (2009) Diffusion tensor imaging in a rat model of Parkinson’s disease after lesioning of the nigrostriatal tract. NMR Biomed 22:697–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hui ES, Cheung MM, Qi L, Wu EX (2008) Towards better MR characterization of neural tissues using directional diffusion kurtosis analysis. Neuroimage 42:122–134Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wu G, Zhao Z, Yao Q et al (2018) The study of clear cell renal cell carcinoma with MR diffusion kurtosis tensor imaging and its histopathologic correlation. Acad Radiol 25:430–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Priola AM, Priola SM, Gned D et al (2017) Diffusion-weighted quantitative MRI of pleural abnormalities: intra- and interobserver variability in the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements. J Magn Reson Imaging 46:769–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of MedicineShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Radiology, Tongji Hospital, School of MedicineTongji UniversityShanghaiChina
  3. 3.Department of Urology, Ren Ji Hospital, School of MedicineShanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina

Personalised recommendations