Diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI in Lung Cancers: ADC Test-retest Repeatability
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: To determine the test-retest repeatability of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) measurements across institutions and MRI vendors, plus investigate the effect of post-processing methodology on measurement precision.
Methods: Thirty malignant lung lesions >2 cm in size (23 patients) were scanned on two occasions, using echo-planar-Diffusion-Weighted (DW)-MRI to derive whole-tumour ADC (b = 100, 500 and 800smm). Scanning was performed at 4 institutions (3 MRI vendors). Whole-tumour volumes-of-interest were copied from first visit onto second visit images and from one post-processing platform to an open-source platform, to assess ADC repeatability and cross-platform reproducibility.
Results: Whole-tumour ADC values ranged from 0.66-1.94x10mms (mean = 1.14). Within-patient coefficient-of-variation (wCV) was 7.1% (95% CI 5.7-9.6%), limits-of-agreement (LoA) -18.0 to 21.9%. Lesions >3 cm had improved repeatability: wCV 3.9% (95% CI 2.9-5.9%); and LoA -10.2 to 11.4%. Variability for lesions <3 cm was 2.46 times higher. ADC reproducibility across different post-processing platforms was excellent: Pearson's R = 0.99; CoV 2.8% (95% CI 2.3-3.4%); and LoA -7.4 to 8.0%.
Conclusion: A free-breathing DW-MRI protocol for imaging malignant lung tumours achieved satisfactory within-patient repeatability and was robust to changes in post-processing software, justifying its use in multi-centre trials. For response evaluation in individual patients, a change in ADC >21.9% will reflect treatment-related change.
Key Points: • In lung cancer, free-breathing DWI-MRI produces acceptable images with evaluable ADC measurement. • ADC repeatability coefficient-of-variation is 7.1% for lung tumours >2 cm. • ADC repeatability coefficient-of-variation is 3.9% for lung tumours >3 cm. • ADC measurement precision is unaffected by the post-processing software used. • In multicentre trials, 22% increase in ADC indicates positive treatment response.
Zhou J, Wen Y, Ding R, Liu J, Fang H, Li X Cancer Imaging. 2024; 24(1):14.
PMID: 38246984 PMC: 10802010. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-024-00660-4.
A multicenter study of cervical cancer using quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging.
Wang X, Ye Z, Li S, Yan Z, Cheng J, Ning G Acta Radiol. 2024; 65(7):851-859.
PMID: 38196316 PMC: 11295415. DOI: 10.1177/02841851231222360.
Mohakud S, Das R, Bag N, Mohapatra P, Mishra P, Naik S Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2023; 34(1):6-15.
PMID: 38106852 PMC: 10723977. DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1771530.
Jiang Z, Sun W, Xu D, Yu H, Mei H, Song X Sci Rep. 2023; 13(1):11954.
PMID: 37488151 PMC: 10366139. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-38360-x.
The role of clinical imaging in oncology drug development: progress and new challenges.
Murphy P, Galette P, Van der Aart J, Janiczek R, Patel N, Brown A Br J Radiol. 2023; 96(1150):20211126.
PMID: 37393537 PMC: 10546429. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20211126.