Premium
Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in endometrial carcinoma: Effect of region of interest methods on ADC values
Author(s) -
Inoue Chie,
Fujii Shinya,
Kaneda Sachi,
Fukunaga Takeru,
Kaminou Toshio,
Kigawa Junzo,
Harada Tasuku,
Ogawa Toshihide
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.24372
Subject(s) - effective diffusion coefficient , medicine , radiology , magnetic resonance imaging
Purpose To investigate the influence of different‐shaped regions of interest (ROIs) on tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements and interobserver variability in endometrial carcinoma. Materials and Methods Sixty‐nine patients (age range, 32–92 years; mean, 61 years) were evaluated in this retrospective study. Patients had undergone magnetic resonance (MR) examinations including diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) using a 3.0‐T MR system. Two readers measured tumor ADCs using four ROI methods: freehand ROI; square ROI; round ROI; and five small, round ROIs. Minimum and mean ADCs were obtained. The interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was statistically analyzed to assess measurement reliability. Repeated‐measures analysis of variance was used for comparisons of ADCs measured with each ROI method. Results ICCs were 0.93 (minimum ADC) / 0.93 (mean ADC) for freehand ROIs, 0.94/0.95 for square ROIs, 0.94/0.95 for round ROIs, and 0.95/0.96 for five small, round ROIs. All ROI methods indicated excellent correlations. Each minimum ADC was significantly different except between square ROI and round ROI ( P < 0.001). Mean ADCs showed significant differences only between freehand ROI and the other ROI methods ( P < 0.001). Conclusion ROI shape has no marked influence on ICC in endometrial carcinoma. Compared with minimum ADCs, mean ADCs are suggested to provide more stable results regardless of the ROI method. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2014;40:157–161 . © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc .