4.6 Article

Differentiation between nasopharyngeal carcinoma and lymphoma at the primary site using whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps

Journal

RADIOLOGIA MEDICA
Volume 125, Issue 7, Pages 647-653

Publisher

SPRINGER-VERLAG ITALIA SRL
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01152-8

Keywords

MRI; DWI; Histogram analysis; Nasopharyngeal carcinoma; Lymphoma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction To determine the value of whole-tumor histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps in differentiating nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) from lymphoma (NPL) at the primary site Method and materials One hundred forty-seven patients with nasopharyngeal tumors (89 NPCs and 38 NPLs) who had undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted imaging were retrospectively analyzed. ADC histogram-derived parameters were compared between the NPC and NPL groups by using the Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of the histogram parameters were plotted for diagnostic accuracy. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for each histogram parameter. Results In whole-tumor histogram analysis, the mean, median, and 10th and 25th percentiles of ADC were all significantly higher in NPC than NPL (P = 0.045, P = 0.035, P = 0.005, and P = 0.016, respectively). Uniformity was significantly higher in NPC than NPL (P = 0.001). Skewness was significantly lower in NPC than NPL (P = 0.039). For the conventional ROI-based method, ADC(mean) values were significantly higher in NPC than in NPL (P = 0.009). The ROC curve analysis showed that uniformity yielded the largest area under the curve (AUC = 0.768) for differentiating NPC from NPL among all ADC metrics, followed by 10th percentiles of ADC (AUC = 0.725); sensitivity and specificity were 76.5% and 71.4%, respectively. Conclusion Whole-tumor histogram analysis of ADC maps could be helpful for differentiating NPC from NPL.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available