您的位置：山东大学 -> 科技期刊社 -> 《山东大学学报（医学版）》

山东大学学报 (医学版) ›› 2020, Vol. 1 ›› Issue (7): 89-95.doi: 10.6040/j.issn.1671-7554.0.2020.0089

• • 上一篇    下一篇

磁共振扩散加权成像单指数模型与扩散峰度成像模型在61例肾透明细胞癌分级中的对比

罗昕1*,何兵1*,聂清生2,侯震波3,董军1,李玉花1,曾祥芹1,刘伟1,孔德民1,曹金凤1   

  1. 淄博市中心医院 1. 影像科;2. 泌尿外科;3. 病理科, 山东 淄博 255036
  • 出版日期:2020-07-20 发布日期:2020-07-10
  • 通讯作者: 曹金凤. E-mail:cjf19810629@163.com*共同第一作者.
  • 基金资助:
    山东省医药卫生科技发展计划(2018WS001);淄博市科学技术发展计划(2017kj010041)

Comparison of the value of mono-exponential mode and diffusion kurtosis imaging mode in grading clear cell renal cell carcinoma using magnetic resonance diffusion-weighted imaging

LUO Xin1*, HE Bing1*, NIE Qingsheng2, HOU Zhenbo3, DONG Jun1, LI Yuhua1, ZENG Xiangqin1, LIU Wei1, KONG Demin1, CAO Jinfeng1   

  1. 1. Department of Radiology;
    2. Department of Urology;
    3. Department of Pathology, Zibo Central Hospital, Zibo 255036, Shandong, China
  • Online:2020-07-20 Published:2020-07-10

PDF (PC)

75

摘要： 目的 探讨磁共振扩散加权成像(DWI)单指数模型和扩散峰度成像(DKI)模型在预测肾透明细胞癌(ccRCC)病理分级中的价值差异。 方法 前瞻性纳入经病理结果证实的ccRCC患者61例,根据Fuhrman分级将其分为低级别组27例(Ⅰ级10例、Ⅱ级17例)和高级别组34例(Ⅲ级19例、Ⅳ级15例)。患者均行肾脏常规单指数DWI序列和DKI序列扫描,测量参数包括ADC值、各向异性分数(FA)、平均扩散系数(MD)、平均扩散峰度(MK)、轴向扩散峰度(Ka)以及径向扩散峰度(Kr)值。多组间比较采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA),利用独立样本t检验进行两组间均数的比较,使用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线得出DWI、DKI各参数的曲线下面积(AUC)、敏感度、特异度,并用Delong检验比较各参数的AUC值,以评价各参数对分级的诊断效能。 结果 (1)ADC、MD、MK、Ka、Kr值在正常肾实质、低级别及高级别ccRCC间的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),FA值在3组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。正常肾实质、低级别及高级别ccRCC的ADC值分别为(2.10±0.16)×10-3mm2/s、(1.70±0.34)×10-3mm2/s、(1.20±0.32)×10-3mm2/s,FA值分别为0.26±0.06、0.26±0.11、0.28±0.14,MD值分别为(6.02±0.43)×10-3mm2/s、(5.10±0.96)×10-3mm2/s、(3.70±0.76)×10-3mm2/s,MK值分别为0.49±0.04、0.57±0.07、0.84±0.20,Ka值分别为0.39±0.04、0.48±0.14、0.65±0.19,Kr值分别为0.53±0.05、0.66±0.18、0.98±0.29。与正常肾实质比较,低级别与高级别ccRCC患者的ADC、MD值均逐渐减低,MK、Ka及Kr值均逐渐升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),FA值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。(2)绘制ROC曲线,得出ADC、MD、MK、Ka及Kr值鉴别低级别、高级别ccRCC的截断值分别为1.50×10-3mm2/s、4.49×10-3mm2/s、0.71、0.51、0.68,敏感度分别为85.3%、87.5%、79.2%、83.3%、95.8%,特异度分别为75.2%、90.6%、100.0%、85.3%、75.4%;各参数鉴别低级别、高级别ccRCC的AUC分别为ADC值0.831,MD值0.884,MK值0.950,Ka值0.832,Kr值0.874,其中以MK值的AUC最高。 结论 与单指数扩散模型相比,DKI模型,特别是其衍生出的参数MK,更适合作为ccRCC病理分级预测的成像技术。

关键词: 肾透明细胞癌, 扩散加权成像, 单指数模型, 扩散峰度成像模型

Abstract: Objective To compare the value of diffusion kurtosis imaging(DKI)and diffusion weighted imaging(DWI)mono-exponential mode in grading clear cell renal cell carcinoma(ccRCC). Methods Sixty-one patients with pathologically proven ccRCC were enrolled in this prospective clinical study. The patients were divided into low grade group(10 with grade Ⅰ and 17 with grade Ⅱ)and high-grade group(19 with grade Ⅲ and 15 with grade Ⅳ)according to the Fuhrman classification system. All patients underwent DWI examination by using both mono-exponential mode and DKI mode. The ADC, fractional anisotropy(FA), mean diffusivity(MD), mean kurtosis(MK), axial kurtosis(Ka)and radial kurtosis(Kr)values were measured, respectively. One-way analysis of variance(ANOVA)was used to compare the difference among three groups, and the independent sample t test was used to compare the difference between two groups. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity of DWI and DKI parameters were calculated by using receiver-operating characteristic(ROC)analysis, then these AUC values were compared by Delong test to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the parameters. Results (1)There were statistical differences in ADC, MD, MK, Ka, and Kr values among the normal renal parenchyma, low-grade and high-grade ccRCC groups(P<0.05). The difference in FA value among the three groups was not statistically significant(P>0.05). The ADC values of the normal renal parenchyma, low-grade and high-grade ccRCC were(2.10±0.16)×10-3mm2/s,(1.70±0.34)×10-3mm2/s, and(1.20±0.32)×10-3mm2/s, FA values were 0.26±0.06, 0.26±0.11, and 0.28±0.14, MD values were(6.02±0.43)×10-3mm2/s,(5.10±0.96)×10-3mm2/s, and(3.70±0.76)×10-3mm2/s, MK values were 0.49±0.04, 0.57±0.07, and 0.84±0.20, Ka values were 0.39±0.04, 0.48±0.14, and 0.65±0.19, Kr values were 0.53±0.05, 0.66±0.18, and 0.98±0.29, respectively. Compared with the normal renal parenchyma, the ADC and MD values of patients with low-grade and high-grade ccRCC were gradually decreased, and the MK, Ka, and Kr values were all gradually increased(P<0.05). The difference in FA value was not statistically significant(P>0.05). (2)ROC analysis showed that the cut-off values of ADC, MD, MK, Ka and Kr in predicting pathological grade of ccRCC were 1.50×10-3mm2/s, 4.49×10-3mm2/s, 0.71, 0.51, 0.68, the sensitivity were 85.3%, 87.5%, 79.2%, 83.3%, 95.8%, and the specificity were 75.2%, 90.6%, 100.0%, 85.3%, 75.4%, respectively. The area under the curve(AUC)of ADC, MD, MK, Ka and Kr was 0.831, 0.884, 0.950, 0.832 and 0.874, among which the AUC of the MK value was the highest. Conclusion Compared with DWI mono-exponential mode, DKI mode, especially its derived parameter MK, is more suitable to serve as an imaging technique for predicting the pathological grade of ccRCC.

Key words: Clear cell renal cell carcinoma, Diffusion-weighted imaging, Mono-exponential mode, Diffusion kurtosis imaging mode

中图分类号: 

  • R445.2
[1] Tilki D, Nguyen HG, DallEra MA, et al. Impact of histologic subtype on cancer-specific survival in patients with renal cell carcinoma and tumor thrombus[J]. Eur Urol, 2014, 66(3): 577-583.
[2] Ghavamian R, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, et al. Renal cell carcinoma in the solitary kidney: an analysis of complications and outcome after nephron sparing surgery[J]. J Urol, 2002, 168(2): 454-459.
[3] Doehn C, Siebels M, Steiner T. Follow-up of renal cell carcinoma based on stage and initial treatment[J]. Urologe A, 2020, 59(2): 162-168.
[4] Seveenco S, Heinz-Peer G, Ponhold L, et al. Utility and limitations of 3-Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for differentiation of renal tumors[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2014, 83(6): 909-913.
[5] Yu X, Lin M, Ouyang H, et al. Application of ADC measurement in characterization of renal cell carcinomas with different pathological types and grades by 3.0 T diffusion-weighted MRI[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(11): 3061-3066.
[6] Minarikova L, Bogner W, Pinker K, et al. Investigating the prediction value of multiparametric magnetic resonace imaging at 3 T in response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer[J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27(5): 190l-1911.
[7] Kamagata K, Andica C, Hatano T, et al. Advanced diffusion magnetic resonance imaging in patients with Alzheimers and Parkinsons diseases[J]. Neural Regen Res, 2020, 15(9): 1590-1600.
[8] Abdalla G, Sanverdi E, Machado PM, et al. Role of diffusional kurtosis imaging in grading of brain gliomas: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. BMJ Open, 2018, 8(12): e025123. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025123.
[9] Pentang G, Lanzman RS, Heusch P, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging of the human kidney: a feasibility study[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2014, 32(5): 413-420.
[10] Huang Y, Chen X, Zhang Z, et al. MRI quantification of non-Gaussian water diffusion in normal human kidney: a diffusional kurtosis imaging study[J]. NMR Biomed, 2015, 28(2): 154-161.
[11] Srigley JR, Delahunt B, Eble JN, et al. The international society of urological pathology(ISUP)vancouver classification of renal neoplasia[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2013, 37(10): 1469-1489.
[12] Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype[J]. Acta Radiol, 2012, 53(3): 349-358.
[13] 孙军, 邢伟, 陈杰, 等. Tlb期肾透明细胞癌 ADC 值与病理分级相关性的研究[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2012, 46(8): 682-686. SUN Jun, XING Wei, CHEN Jie, et al. Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient value and pathological grading in pT1b clear cell renal carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiology, 2012, 46(8): 682-686.
[14] Jensen JH, Helpern JA, Ramani A, et al. Diffusional kurtosis imaging: the quantification of non-gaussian diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging[J]. Magn Reson Med, 2005, 53(6): 1432-1440.
[15] Yang AW, Jensen JH, Hu CC, et al. Effect of cerebral spinal fluid suppression for diffusional kurtosis imaging[J]. J Magn Imaging, 2013, 37(2): 365-371.
[16] Hempel JM, Brendle C, Bender B, et al. Diffusion kurtosis imaging histogram parameter metrics predicting survival in integrated molecular subtypes of diffuse glioma: an observational cohort study[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 112: 144-152. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.01.014.
[17] Quentin M, Pentang G, Schimmoller, et al. Feasibility of diffusion kurtosis tensor imaging in prostate MRI for the assessment of prostate cancer: preliminary results[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2014, 32(7): 880-885.
[18] 钟燕, 叶慧义. 磁共振扩散峰度成像在前列腺癌中的研究现状[J]. 中国医学影像学杂志, 2017, 25(3): 235-237.
[19] Shan Y, Chen X, Liu K, et al. Prostate cancer aggressive prediction: preponderant diagnostic performances of intravoxel incoherent motion(IVIM)imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging(DKI)beyond ADC at 3.0 T scanner with gleason score at final pathology[J]. Abdom Radiol(NY), 2019, 44(10): 3441-3452.
[20] 刘伟锋, 陈亮, 江新青. 磁共振扩散峰度成像鉴别诊断肾细胞癌亚型的可行性分析[J]. 哈尔滨医科大学学报, 2016, 50(4): 333-336. LIU Weifeng, CHEN Liang, JIANG Xinqing. Feasibility of diffusion kurtosis iamging in differential diagnosis of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma[J]. Journal of Harbin Medical University, 2016, 50(4): 333-336.
[21] Wu G, Zhao Z, Yao Q, et al. The study of clear cell renal carcinoma with MR diffusion kurtosis tensor imaging and its histopathologic correlation[J]. Acad Radiol, 2018, 25(4): 430-438.
[22] 朱庆强, 朱文荣, 叶靖, 等. 扩散峰度成像评价肾透明细胞癌恶性程度的价值[J]. 中华放射学杂志, 2017, 51(3): 188-191. ZHU Qingqiang, ZHU Wenrong, YE Jing, et al. Value of diffusion kurtosis in assessment of pathological grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Radiology, 2017, 51(3): 188-191.
[23] Dai Y, Yao Q, Wu G, et al. Characterization of clear cell renal carcinoma with diffusion kurtosis imaging: correlation between diffusion kurtosis parameters and tumor cellularity[J]. NMR Biomed, 2016, 29(7): 873-881.
[24] Raab P, Hattingen E, Franz K, et al. Cerebral gliomas: diffusional kurtosis imaging analysis of microstructural differences[J]. Radiology, 2010, 254(3): 876-881.
[25] Van Cauter S, Veraart J, Sijbers J, et al. Gliomas: diffusion kurtosis MR imaging in grading[J]. Radiology, 2012, 263(2): 492-501.
[1] 张振伟,李佳,陈克明. IGF2BP2/m6A/ITGA5信号轴调控肾透明细胞增殖和迁移[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2022, 60(9): 74-84.
[2] 李灿楦,陈洁. 基于生物信息学分析乙酰辅酶A酰基转移酶1在肾透明细胞癌中的表达及作用机制[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2021, 59(2): 26-33.
[3] 栗英林,宋道庆,徐忠华. 应用生物信息学方法分析肾透明细胞癌中FKBP11的表达[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(9): 45-51.
[4] 赵作辉,李翠玲,王道光,王风芹,曲宏懿,丁森泰,巩晶,吕家驹,杨静华. MnSOD乙酰化对肾透明细胞癌786-O细胞增殖、凋亡的影响[J]. 山东大学学报（医学版）, 2017, 55(9): 31-35.
[5] 邓凯, 张成琪, 李伟, 王广丽, 董桂青, 史浩, 庞涛. 磁共振扩散加权成像诊断子宫内膜癌分期及与病理结果的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 52(8): 81-84.
[6] 解放，刘帅，刘征，牛志宏. NOV基因与Ki-67、VEGF、p27和COX-2在肾透明细胞癌中的相关性[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2013, 51(10): 29-32.
[7] 吕怡静，任敏，王博，葛汝青，张继东. EZH2和CTGF在肾透明细胞癌中的表达及其临床意义[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2011, 49(3): 85-89.
[8] 刘海南1,2，李大伟2，张建平3，任巨超2，田素建2，房志卿2，吕家驹1. HepaCAM在肾透明细胞癌中的表达及临床意义[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2011, 49(3): 81-84.
[9] 吕怡静，任敏，王博，葛汝青，张继东. EZH2和CTGF在肾透明细胞癌中的表达及其临床意义[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2011, 49(3): 85-89.
[10] 刘海南1,2，李大伟2，张建平3，任巨超2，田素建2，房志卿2，吕家驹1. HepaCAM在肾透明细胞癌中的表达及临床意义[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2011, 49(3): 81-84.
[11] 陈强1,2，吕家驹1，荆涛2，李玉军3. 基质金属蛋白酶-2和趋化因子受体4在肾透明细胞癌组织中的表达及其临床意义[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2010, 48(6): 107-.
[12] 曹金凤1，林祥涛1,2，王光彬2，肖连祥1，苗明明1，杨金永3. DWI及DCE-MRI在良恶性骨病鉴别诊断中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2010, 48(3): 144-148.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed   
[1] 史爽,李娟,米琦,王允山,杜鲁涛,王传新. 胃癌miRNAs预后风险评分模型的构建与应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 47 -52 .
[2] 姜保东,马祥兴,王青,王茜,冯晓源,李克,于富华 . 脑CT静脉造影扫描时相及重建层厚的选择[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2008, 46(11): 1084 -1086 .
[3] 黄飞,王怀经,邢毅,高薇,李永刚,邢子英,李振中. NGF和GM1联合应用对坐骨神经损伤大鼠初级传入神经元的保护作用[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(4): 332 -335 .
[4] 唐芳1,2 ，张颖倩3 ，王志强4 ,康殿民4 ,王洁贞1 ,薛付忠1 . 自然疫源性疾病疫源地空间结构的二维
最小生成树模型及其应用
[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2009, 47(01): 106 -110 .
[5] 吕龙飞,李林,李树海,亓磊,鲁铭,程传乐,田辉. 腔镜下细针导管空肠造瘘在微创McKeown食管癌切除术中的应用[J]. 山东大学学报 (医学版), 2020, 1(7): 77 -81 .
[6] 邵海港, 王璇, 王青. 山东地区人下颌第一前磨牙根管系统解剖研究[J]. 山东大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 52(9): 85 -89 .
[7] 李洧,李道卫,叶茜,高顺翠,姜淑娟. 经支气管镜针吸活检在纵隔疾病诊断中的价值[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2008, 46(11): 1063 -1065 .
[8] 朱晓丽1，郭淑玲1，苏磊1，冯玉新2，袁方曙1. 蠕形螨全蛋白提取及相对分子量鉴定[J]. 山东大学学报（医学版）, 2014, 52(5): 58 -62 .
[9] 王旭平,赵玲,冯玉新,商林珊,刘金成,曹伟朋,朱晓音,辛华. 绞股蓝总苷对谷氨酸诱导的胎鼠大脑皮层神经元氧化性损伤保护机制的研究[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2006, 44(6): 564 -567 .
[10] 王学萍,杨洪玲. 洛汀新治疗高血压50例报告[J]. 山东大学学报(医学版), 2007, (2): 213 .
版权所有 © 2018 《山东大学学报(医学版)》编辑部　
地址:山东大学科技期刊社（济南市历城区山大南路27号山东大学中心校区明德楼B座721室） 电话: 0531-88366918 E-mail: xbyxb@sdu.edu.cn
本系统由北京玛格泰克科技发展有限公司设计开发