Published October 2015 | Version v1
Journal article

Clinical relevance of the apparent diffusion coefficient value of metastatic bone tumours on diffusion-weighted MRI images: differences according to the types of primary tumour, the affected bones, and clinical factors

Description

Aim: To evaluate whether the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of metastatic bone tumours on diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) images differs according to the type of primary cancer, the affected bone, and clinical factors. Materials and methods: For this retrospective study, two radiologists reviewed MRI images, including ADC maps, of 67 patients (M:F=38:29; median age, 48 years) who were diagnosed with bone metastasis by means of histological or clinical confirmation. The primary tumours included 29 lung adenocarcinomas, 15 invasive ductal adenocarcinomas of the breast, 13 hepatocellular carcinomas, six prostatic carcinomas, and four renal cell carcinomas. ADC values of the metastatic tumour were compared according to the type of primary malignancy, the affected bone, and the age and sex of the patient using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests with Bonferroni correction. In addition, pre-contrast CT images were available in 38 of 67 patients; a subanalysis of the CT radiodensity and ADC values were performed with Spearman correlation. Results: The mean, standard deviation, and minimum and maximum values of the ADC of metastatic bone tumours did not differ significantly according to type of primary malignancy, the affected bone, or clinical variables (p>0.1). The ADC value was not significantly correlated with CT radiodensity (p=0.24). Intra- and interobserver agreements for the mean ADC values were excellent (intra-observer: p=0.98; interobserver: p=0.98). Conclusions: Assessment of the ADC value of metastatic bone tumours is not reliable for differentiation of the type of primary cancer. -- Highlights: •ADC of bone metastasis is not reliable for separation of the type of primary cancer. •ADC of bone metastasis does not differ according to the affected bone. •There is no significant correlation between ADC value and CT density

Availability note (English)

Available from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.05.015

Additional details

Identifiers

DOI
10.1016/j.crad.2015.05.015;
PII
S0009-9260(15)00255-X;

Publishing Information

Journal Title
Clinical Radiology
Journal Volume
70
Journal Issue
10
Journal Page Range
p. 1116-1121
ISSN
0009-9260
CODEN
CLRAAG

INIS

Country of Publication
United Kingdom
Country of Input or Organization
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
INIS RN
47025623
Subject category
S62: RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE;
Descriptors DEI
CARCINOMAS; CAT SCANNING; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; CORRELATIONS; DIAGNOSIS; DIFFUSION; IMAGES; KIDNEYS; LUNGS; MAMMARY GLANDS; METASTASES; NMR IMAGING; PATIENTS; REVIEWS; SKELETON; WEIGHT
Descriptors DEC
BODY; COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUES; DISEASES; DOCUMENT TYPES; EVALUATION; GLANDS; NEOPLASMS; ORGANS; RESPIRATORY SYSTEM; TOMOGRAPHY

Optional Information

Copyright
Copyright (c) 2015 Elsevier Science B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, All rights reserved.