Introduction
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer incidence and mortality, with 2.1
million new lung cancer cases and 1.8 million deaths, representing close to one in
five (18.4%) cancer deaths.[1 ]
Early detection and characterization of lung lesions into benign and malignant are
of great importance for further workup and treatment plans. Chest radiographs and
computed tomography (CT) scans are primary modalities for morphological evaluation.
In contrast, positron emission tomography (PET) CT is the modality for the functional
evaluation of lung lesions, which uses ionizing radiation.
Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) is functional imaging used to detect the restricted
diffusion of the water molecule in the body. Although its use is well established
in the brain and very extensively investigated in the prostate and breast, there are
few lung studies. There is insufficient data regarding advanced 3 Tesla magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) scanners for lung lesion characterization.[2 ]
[3 ] The use of higher b-values (8,00–1,000 s/mm 2 ) reduces the perfusion effect and increases the diffusion effect at the cost of SNR
(signal-to-noise ratio) and with an increase in acquisition time.[4 ]
Hence, the primary purpose of our study was to evaluate the utility of high b-value
(1000 s/mm 2 , with reasonable SNR) DWI in the characterization of lung lesions in an advanced
3 Tesla MRI scanner using qualitative, semiquantitative, and quantitative parameters.
Materials and Methods
The study was designed as a prospective observational study and conducted in the department
of radiology of a tertiary teaching hospital in Eastern India after obtaining clearance
from the institutional ethics committee. The study was conducted from July 2019to
May 2021.
Patients aged more than 18 years with lung mass /nodule more than or equal to 1 cm
detected by CT or chest radiograph were included in our study after obtaining informed
consent. The rationale behind the 1 cm size is that this is the minimum size advised
for a CT-guided biopsy to avoid a biopsy diagnostic failure.
Proven lung cancer cases on treatment, patients with contraindications to MRI like
non-MR compatible implants, patients who did not want to undergo MRI, and a definitive
benign lesion in CT not requiring histopathological diagnosis like popcorn calcification
in hamartoma were excluded.
Patients underwent lung MRI in a 70 cm bore-sized, 3 Tesla whole-body MR unit (Discovery,
GE Healthcare, United States) with a maximum gradient strength of 45 mT/m and a slew
rate of 200T/m/s, field of view of 50 cm using a 3.0 T GEM anterior array coil in
the supine position.
The technical specifications for the imaging protocols of MRI are outlined in [Table 1 ].
Table 1
The technical specifications for the imaging protocols of MRI
1. T2W imaging:
a) T2W Coronal: SSFSE BH
• TR: 2558. 4ms, TE: 90ms, Slice thickness: 4 mm, Slice gap: 0. 5, NEX: 1, Matrix:
288 × 384
• Pixel size: 1.0 × 1.4, Acceleration factor PE: 2
b) T2W Axial: SSFSE BH
• TR: 2500. 0, TE: 90. 0, Slice thickness: 4mm, Slice gap: 0.5mm, NEX: 1, Matrix:
288 × 384
• Pixel size: 1.0 × 1.3, Acceleration factor: 2, Intensity correction: SCIC (Surface
Coil Intensity Correction)
c) T2WI Axial FS: SSFSE BH FS
• TR: 2500. 0, TE: 90. 0, Slice thickness: 4mm, Slice gap: 0. 5mm, NEX:1, Matrix:
320 × 256
• Pixel size:1. 2 × 1. 5, Acceleration factor: 2, Intensity correction: SCIC
2. T1W imaging:
T1W axial: FSPGR BH
• TR:180, TE:2. 1/Fr, Flip angle:80, Slice thickness:4mm, Slice gap:0. 5mm, NEX:1,
Matrix:320 × 256
• Pixel size:1. 2 × 2. 6, Acceleration factor:1. 5, Intensity correction: SCIC
3. Diffusion-weighted imaging
• TR: 6000, TE: 66. 3/FE, Slice thickness: 4mm, Slice spacing: 1, NEX:1, Matrix:
96 × 128
• Pixel size: 4. 4 × 3. 3, Acceleration factor:1
• b-value- 50, 800, 1000 s/mm2
Abbreviations: BH, breath hold; FSPGR, fast spoiled gradient echo; NEX, number of
excitations; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SCIC, Surface Coil Intensity Correction;
SSFSE, single shot fast spin echo; T1W, T1-weighted; TE, time to echo; TR, repetition
time.
The DW images with b-value of 1,000 s/mm 2 were evaluated by two radiologists with more than 6 years of experience. The apparent
diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps were generated using the combined 50, 800, and 1,000 s/mm
2 b values. On the DWI, a visually assessed 5-point score was given. A score of 1 indicates
nearly no signal intensity (SI). Score 2: SI between 1 and 3. Score 3 indicates that
the SI of the lesion was almost equal to the spinal cord. Score 4 represented the
lesion with SI higher than the spinal cord. Lesions with a score of 5 had SI much
higher than that of the spinal cord in the same section. After lesion localization
on T2 WI (T2-weighted imaging) or T2 fat-suppressed imaging, manual region of interest
(ROI) was drawn on the DWI image in the visually assessed most restricted area (darkest
area on the ADC map corresponding to bright area on DWI), then cloned to all the series
that included ADC and exponential ADC (eADC) maps ([Figs. 1 ]
[2 ]
[3 ]
[4 ]). The minimum ADC value (average value minus standard deviation) within the ROI
on the ADC map was the ADC min. However, the ROI size was variable for each case and
dependent on the area of diffusion restriction. Another ROI was placed in the spinal
canal on the DWI in the same slice and cloned to the ADC map to obtain the spinal
cord's SI and ADC values, respectively. Then lesion to spinal cord ratio (LSR), the
SI ratio of the lesion and the spinal cord, was calculated. The eADC value was obtained.
A ratio of the ADC min value of the lesion and spinal cord was also calculated and represented as lesion
to spinal cord ADC ratio (LSAR).
Fig. 1 The magnetic resonance imaging of a 51-year-old male patient who presented with a
cough showing a single T2 hyperintense lesion (A ) with an irregular margin located in the apical segment of the right upper lobe.
The lesion showing diffusion restriction with a high lesion to spinal cord ratio value
(B ), lower minimum exponential apparent diffusion coefficient, and low lesion to spinal
cord apparent diffusion coefficient ratio values(C ). The measurement of the exponential apparent diffusion coefficient value (D ) is shown. The histopathological diagnosis of the biopsy specimen was adenocarcinoma.
Fig. 2 The magnetic resonance imaging of a 38-year-old male smoker who presented with cough
and weight loss showing a single T2 hyperintense lesion (A ) with a lobulated margin in the apical segment of the left upper lobe. The lesion
showing diffusion restriction with a high lesion to spinal cord ratio value (B ), lower minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and low lesion to spinal cord
ADC ratio values (C ). The measurement of the exponential ADC value (D ) is shown. Associated features of mediastinal invasion and left pleural effusion
are also seen. The histopathological diagnosis was small cell carcinoma.
Fig. 3 The magnetic resonance imaging of a 51-year-old male with a cough not responding
to medical treatment showing a solitary T2 hyperintense wedge-shaped lesion (A ) with a smooth margin and internal cavitation in the right middle lobe. The lesion
showing no significant diffusion restriction with a lower lesion to spinal cord ratio
(B ), higher minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and higher lesion to spinal
cord ADC ratio values (C ). The measurement of the exponential ADC value (D ) is shown. The histopathological diagnosis was granuloma, a benign lesion.
Fig. 4 The magnetic resonance imaging of a 65-year-old female with primary gastrointestinal
malignancy showing a single peripheral T2 hyperintense (A ) lesion with a lobulated margin in the right lower lobe. The lesion showing diffusion
restriction with a high lesion to spinal cord ratio value (B ). The exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) (C ) map is also depicted. The low minimum ADC, and low lesion to spinal cord ADC ratio
values (D ) are noted. The histopathological diagnosis was a metastasis from a gastrointestinal
tract primary.
The patients underwent a biopsy under CT guidance for histopathological analysis.
The patients who refused biopsy or lesions that appeared benign on imaging were serially
followed up on imaging at 6 months, 1 year, 18 months, and 2 years if the size remained
stable.[5 ]
The sample size was planned at 31 patients. Data analysis was done with the help of
SPSS version 20.0 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA). Qualitative data
were presented with the help of frequency and percentages. The independent student
t -test assessed the association among quantitative study parameters. The p -value of less than 0.05 was considered significant. Receiver operating characteristics
(ROC) analysis was used to calculate the diagnostic capability of different DWI parameters
by taking histopathological diagnosis as the gold standard. The cutoff value for each
parameter was obtained from the ROC curve analysis.
Results
Thirty-one patients (age range: 24–74 years; mean age 53.48 ± 11.54) with 31 lesions
were scanned. There were 24 malignant (21 primary and 3 metastasis) and 7 benign lesions.
In the malignant group, 21 out of 24 were male patients, 15 were smokers (62.5%),
and the rest were nonsmokers. While in the benign group, only four patients were male,
out of which two (28.5%) were smokers. The mean age of the malignant group was 54
years, and that of the benign group was 51.7 years. The most common clinical presentation
of both benign and malignant groups was cough (100%), followed by weight loss (29%)
and hemoptysis (25%). Other less common presentations were chest pain and breathlessness
(<1%). The demographic features are described in [Table 2 ]. The mean diameter of malignant lesions (n = 24) was 4.6 ± 1.8cm, and that of benign
lesions(n = 7) was 5.3 ± 1 6cm. Three out of 31 (9.7%) lesions had cavitation containing
air. In 30 of 31 lesions, the final diagnosis was made histologically by CT-guided
biopsy. The diagnosis of one benign lesion was made by a follow-up study that showed
no change over 2 years. The histopathological diagnosis of the malignant and benign
lesions with their mean diameter are compiled in [Table 3 ].
Table 2
Comparison of demographic parameters among benign and malignant lesion groups
Malignant (n = 24)
Benign (n = 7)
Smoking history
Smokers
15 (62.5%)
2 (28.5%)
Nonsmokers
9 (37.5%)
5 (71.4%)
Age in years (mean ± SD)
54 ± 12.3
51.7 ± 8.5
Sex
Male
21 (87.5%)
4 (57.1%)
Female
3 (12.5%)
3 (42.8%)
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Table 3
Histopathological patterns and their mean diameters
Diagnosis
n = 31
Mean diameter
Malignant (n = 24)
Squamous cell carcinoma
3
6. 8 ± 0.28
Adenocarcinoma
13
4.12 ± 1.76
Small cell carcinoma
1
8
Metastasis
3
3.5 ± 0.83
Poorly differentiated carcinoma
2
5.25 ± 1.62
Others (adenosquamous carcinoma)
2
4.35 ± 0.77
Benign (n = 7)
Abscess
1
5.6
Granuloma (tubercular)
2
5.75 ± 0.35
Others (melioidosis, fungal pneumonia, Wegener's granulomatosis, and hamartoma)
4
5.1 ± 2.2
DWI examinations were performed successfully, although respiratory ghosting artifacts
caused image distortion; however, it was possible to obtain quantitative parameters
for all lesions. The histopathology of the three cavitating lesions was abscess, squamous
cell carcinoma (SCC), and adenocarcinoma.
The mean SI score of malignant lesions was (3.75 ± 0.60) significantly higher than
that of benign lesions, which measured 2.71 ± 0.75 with a p -value of less than 0.05 on a 5-point rank scale on DWI. One malignant lesion scored
2, which was found to be adenocarcinoma, and 17 other malignant lesions scored 4.
One out of the seven benign lesions scored 4 that was a lung abscess. The area under
the ROC curve ([Fig. 5 ]) was 0.842 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.666–1.000). With a threshold score of
3.5, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 75, 86, and 77.4%, respectively.
Fig. 5 Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for 5-point rank scale on diffusion-weighted
imaging (DWI) to differentiate benign and malignant lesions showing an area under
the curve (AUC) as 0. 842 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0. 666–1.000). The AUC for
minimum apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) is 0.860 (95% CI, 0. 691–1.000). The
AUC for lesion to spinal cord ratio (LSR) on DWI to differentiate benign and malignant
lesions is 0. 810 (95% CI, 0. 584–1. 000). The AUC for lesion to spinal cord ADC ratio
(LSAR) to differentiate benign and malignant lesions is 0. 774 (95% CI, 0. 520–1.
000).
We obtained a weighted kappa value of 0.81 indicating an almost perfect interobserver
agreement between the ADC min values of the two radiologists with a standard error of 0.03 and 95% confidence interval.
The ADC min values were significantly lower in malignant lesions than in benign (p -value <0.05). The average ADC min values (×10-3mm2 /s) were 1.11 ± 0.38 for malignant lesion and 1.49 ± 0.38 for benign lesions (p -Value = < 0.05). The mean LSR for malignant lesions was 1.23 ± 0.25 and for benign
lesions was 0.94 ± 0.32 (p -value <0.05).
The area under the curve (AUC) for ADC min was (0.860; 95% CI, 0.691–1.00) higher than that of LSR (0.801; 95% CI, 0.541–0.995;
[Fig. 5 ]). The ROC curve analysis showed that the optimum threshold for ADC min and LSR to detect malignant lesions was 1.35 × 10-3mm2 /s and 1.08, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ADC min and LSR to differentiate benign and malignant lesions were calculated using these
thresholds. The sensitivity of ADC min (87.5%) was higher than LSR (83.3%). However, they had equal specificity of (71.4%)
in differentiating benign and malignant lesions. ADC min had a slightly better accuracy of 83.8% in correctly identifying the malignant and
benign lesions than LSR, which had an accuracy of 80.6%. Highest LSR was found in
poorly differentiated carcinoma.
Other diffusion parameters that were newly taken in this study include LSAR, which
was calculated by dividing the ADC min of the lesion by the ADC min of the spinal cord in the same slice. A significant difference was also found for
LSAR between benign and malignant lesions (p -value <0.05) with a mean value of 1.69 ± 0.82 and 1.09 ± 0.93, respectively. The
ROC curve analysis of LSAR also showed fair results with an AUC of 0.774 ([Fig. 5 ]). With an optimum cutoff value of 1.38, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy
were similar to that of ADC min , which were 87.5, 71.4, and 83.8%, respectively. Another parameter of DWI was eADC
that showed very low AUC in ROC curve analysis with a low accuracy rate. No significant
difference was found between benign and malignant lesions (p -Value >0.05) for eADC value. The mean value of different parameters in benign and
malignant lesions is described in [Table 4 ].
Table 4
Comparison of mean values of different DW MRI parameters between benign and malignant
lesions
Parameters
Benign lesions
Malignant lesions
p -Value
SI score
2.71 ± 0.75
3.75 ± 0.60
< 0.05
ADC min (×10−3 mm2 /s)
1.49 ± 0.38
1.11 ± 0.20
< 0.05
LSR
0.94 ± 0.32
1.23 ± 0.25
< 0.05
LSAR
1.69 ± 0.82
1.09 ± 0.93
< 0.05
eADC
0.357 ± 0.15
0.389 ± 0.12
> 0.05
Abbreviations: eADC, exponential apparent diffusion coefficient; DW, diffusion-weighted;
LSR, lesion to spinal cord ratio; LSAR, lesion to spinal cord ADC ratio; MRI, magnetic
resonance imaging; SI, signal intensity.
The subgroup analysis of DWI parameters between small cell carcinoma (SCLC) and non-small
cell carcinoma (NSCLC) was done as represented in [Table 5 ]. Although we found mean ADC min of SCC was lower than that of non-small cell carcinoma (NSCC), which correlates with
the histopathological findings of high cellularity, high nuclear to the cytoplasmic
ratio in SCC compared to NSCC; it was not statistically significant (p -Value =0.37). Similarly, we found higher mean LSR and lower mean LSAR values in SCC
compared to NSCC (p -Value >0.05).
Table 5
Comparison with previous studies for the evaluation of diagnostic capability of ADC
value to diagnose malignant pulmonary lesions
Study
N/n (malignant/total)
b-Value
(s/mm2 )
ADC (×10−3 mm2 /s) Cutoff
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Accuracy (%)
Present study
24/31
1,000
1.35
87.5
71.4
83.8
Uto et al [10 ]
28/28
1,000
0.83
33
90
50
Çakır et al [9 ]
46/48
1,000
1.5
86.7
88.9
–
Henz Concatto et al [12 ]
49/49
800
1
83.3
93.5
89.8
Mori et al [24 ]
104/140
1,000
1.1
70
97
76
Das et al [29 ]
32/35
800
1.36
80
86.6
82.8
Abbreviation: ADC, apparent diffusion coefficient.
Discussion
Our prospective study used high b-value DW MRI to differentiate benign from malignant
lung lesions using an advanced 3 Tesla scanner. We found that DWI can differentiate
benign lung lesions from malignant ones with reasonable accuracy without using ionizing
radiation as opposed to CT/PET. For the first time in our study, we used a new parameter,
namely LSAR, that showed high specificity and sensitivity in the lesion characterization.
Among the other DWI parameters, ADC min and LSR also showed high positive predictive value for malignancy. However, the eADC
value was statistically insignificant in distinguishing benign and malignant lesions.
DWI is a type of functional imaging that provides information on the molecular features
that underlie pathological and physiological mechanisms.[6 ] It is based on the diffusion of water molecules through the tissue of interest (tumors),
the rate, and direction of that are closely related to the cell structure and integrity
of cell membranes.[7 ] Thus, the diffusion of water molecules is affected by many of the characteristic
features of malignant tumors, including rapid cell proliferation, high cell density,
large nuclei, high amounts of intracellular macromolecular proteins, high nuclear/cytoplasm
ratio, and reduced extracellular space relative to normal tissue.[6 ]
[7 ] Specifically, the diffusion of water molecules in malignant tumors is limited, resulting
in a lower ADC value and facilitating the differentiation of malignant tumors from
benign ones.
DWI can offer qualitative (visual assessment of the lesion), semiquantitative (LSR),
and quantitative assessment (ADC measurement, LSAR, and eADC value measurement) of
lung lesions.
In the qualitative method, a visual assessment of the lesion SI is compared to the
spinal cord SI and scored based on a 5-point rank scale. In our study, the 5-point
rank scale assessment had an area under the ROC curve of 0.842, which indicates a
good test result. With an optimum cutoff value of 3.5, we found sensitivity, specificity,
and accuracy of 75, 86, and 77.4%, respectively. Satoh et al and Çakır et al qualitatively
assessed the lung lesion based on the 5-point scale of DWI and found that most malignant
lesions are hyperintense compared to the spinal cord. With a score of 3 as a cutoff,
Satoh et al found sensitivity and specificity of 89 and 61%, respectively. In contrast,
Çakır et al found these values to be 93.3 and 88.9%, respectively, in differentiating
benign from malignant lung lesions.[8 ]
[9 ]
However, this qualitative assessment is subjective and observer-dependent. The semiquantitative
evaluation method calculates the ratio of lesion SI to that of the spinal cord in
the same slice to differentiate benign and malignant lesions.[10 ]
[11 ]
[12 ] In our study, the LSR was significantly higher in malignant than benign lesions,
with a p -value less than 0.05. The area under the ROC curve was 0.810. With a cutoff value
of 1.08, we found an accuracy of 80.6%. Our study found a higher specificity than
a study conducted by Satoh et al, who reported a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy
of 89, 61, and 89%, respectively.[8 ] Henz Concatto et al and Uto et al used a cutoff value of 1.2 and 1.135, respectively.
They found sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 88.8, 96.7, and 93. 9% and 83,
90, and 86%, respectively.[10 ]
[12 ] A meta-analysis by Shen et al reported that several studies that used LSR to differentiate
benign and malignant lesions found sensitivity ranging from 73 to 97% and specificity
ranging from 69 to 91%.[4 ] Our study found similar results with a sensitivity and specificity of 83.3 and 71.4%,
respectively. The difference between our study and previous studies was apparently
because of different b values and external magnetic field magnitude, which was 3 Tesla
in our case compared to 1.5 T in other studies.
Higher b-values reduce the perfusion effect and increase the diffusion effect. However,
the SNR is adversely affected at higher b-values.[13 ] Considering the b-values between 500 and 1000 s/mm2 for body imaging, we used a
b-value of 1000 s/mm2 to get optimum SNR with a better diffusion effect. Higher b -values (800-1000 s/mm2) are advised with reasonable SNR, which can be achieved by
taking multiple b-values with the expense of an increase in acquisition time.[4 ]
Quantitative assessment can also be done using DWI by calculating the ADC value. ADC
measures the magnitude of water protons movement, which can be compromised by increased
cellularity or density of malignant lesions. The intracellular structural alteration
also contributes to the low ADC value in tumors. Studies by Uto et al and Wang et
al showed no difference in ADC values between benign and malignant nodules.[10 ]
[14 ] However, many other studies found that ADC values of carcinoma lungs are lower than
benign lesions, which are also supported by our study.[12 ]
[15 ] Studies conducted by Cui et al and Weller et al revealed good inter- and intraobserver
variability of ADC values in DWI.[16 ]
[17 ] Hence, ADC is a good and safe marker for the characterization of lung lesions. Çakır
et al and Uto et al documented mean ADC values of 2.02 × 10-3 mm 2 /s, 1.15 × 10-3 mm 2 /s, and 1.19 × 10-3 mm 2 /s, 1.01 × 10-3 mm 2 /s for benign and malignant lesions, respectively.[9 ]
[10 ] Gümüştaş et al documented mean ADC values of 1.5 × 10-3 mm 2 /s and 1.9 × 10-3 mm 2 /s for malignant and benign lesions, respectively.[18 ] Our study found a mean ADC min value of 1.49 × 10-3 mm 2 /s for benign and 1.11 × 10-3 mm 2 /s for malignant lesions. The low ADC value of malignant lesions compared to benign
lesions was also supported by Liu et al and Tondo et al.[15 ]
[19 ]
The difference in the ADC values of our study from others can be attributed to the
fact that we used ADC min, while others used the mean ADC. The ADC min value is more effective than the mean ADC value in distinguishing between malignant
and benign tumors.[20 ]
[21 ]
[22 ] Minimal changes in the diffusion restriction of the malignant lesion with significant
cystic or necrotic components may cause marked ADC variation. However, ADC min is the lowest ADC value in tissues. A study by Zhang et al also supported the highest
diagnostic value of ADC min in differentiating breast lesions.[23 ] The comparative analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ADC values of various studies
with our study is summarized in [Table 5 ].
Among LSR and ADC min , Çakmak et al found ADC min was superior to LSR in differentiating benign and malignant
lesions, while Koyama et al documented LSR as superior and convenient to ADC.[11 ]
[13 ] Our study found ADC min to have a slightly higher AUC of 0.860 than LSR (0.810) and slightly higher sensitivity
and accuracy, similar to Çakmak et al study.[13 ] The variations in the cutoff values may be because the studies are conducted at
different magnetic field strengths (some in 1.5 T and some in 3 Tesla) and variable
b-values and unstandardized ROI delineation. Newer DWI parameter like LSAR, defined
as the ratio of ADC value of the lesion to that of the spinal cord, was evaluated
for the first time in our study. LSAR was equally sensitive and specific to ADC min in differentiating benign and malignant lesions. However, another parameter, eADC,
was statistically insignificant in distinguishing benign and malignant lesions.
Mori et al found that DWI had no significant difference in sensitivity and accuracy
than PET in distinguishing benign and malignant pulmonary lesions. However, it was
superior in specificity (97%) due to fewer false-positive diagnoses than PET (79%).[24 ]
The diagnostic capabilities of DWI parameters in various studies are compared in [Table 6 ].
Table 6
Comparison of diagnostic capabilities of different DW-MRI parameters in distinguishing
benign and malignant lesions
Parameters
AUC
Cutoff
Sensitivity (%)
Specificity (%)
Accuracy (%)
p -Value
SI score
0.842
3.5
75
86
77.4
0.007 (< 0.05)
ADC min (×10−3 mm2 /s)
0.860
1.35
87.5
71.4
83.8
0.004 (< 0. 05)
LSR
0.810
1.08
83.3
71.4
80.6
0.014 (< 0. 05)
LSAR
0.774
1.38
87.5
71.4
83.8
0.030 (< 0. 05)
eADC
0.518
0.282
87.5
42.9
74.19
0.88 (> 0. 05)
Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; eADC, exponential apparent diffusion coefficient;
DW, diffusion-weighted; LSR, lesion to spinal cord ratio; LSAR, lesion to spinal cord
ADC ratio; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; SI, signal intensity.
The subgroup analysis of DWI parameters between SCLC and NSCC was done as represented
in [Table 7 ]. The mean ADC min of SCLC was lower than that of NSCC, which correlates with the histopathological
findings of high cellularity and nuclear to the cytoplasmic ratio in SCLC compared
to NSCLC However, it was not statistically significant (p -value = 0.37). Similarly, we found higher mean LSR and lower mean LSAR values in
SCLC than in NSCLC (p -value >0.05). Koyama et al. found significantly low ADC min in SCLC compared to NSCLC.[25 ]
Table 7
Comparison of DWI parameters between small cell and non-small cell carcinoma group
Parameters
Small cell carcinoma
Non-small cell carcinoma
p -Value
ADC min (×10−3 mm2 /s)
0.84 ± 0.09
1.15 ± 0.18
0.37
LSR
1.37 ± 0.02
1.25 ± 0.23
0.07
LSAR
0.66 ± 0.25
1.15 ± 0.98
0.36
Abbreviations: ADC, exponential apparent diffusion coefficient; DWI, diffusion-weighted
imaging; LSR, lesion to spinal cord ratio; LSAR, lesion to spinal cord ADC ratio.
This discrepancy can be explained because they had not considered cavitary or air-containing
lesions. However, in our study, we have included all kinds of lesions, some (3 out
of 31 lesions) of which are cavitating. The presence of air causes susceptibility
artifacts on DWI and might have affected the ADC values. In a different study by Koyama
et al, subtype classification was limited because the ADC measurement was affected
by susceptibility artifacts and magnetic field inhomogeneities.[26 ]
To the best of our search, we did not find any research on the utility of eADC values
in lung lesions. Researchers have found eADC values as an effective quantitative parameter
with comparable sensitivity and specificity to the ADC values in differentiating benign
from malignant lesions in the breast and renal tumors at 3 Tesla MRI.[27 ]
[28 ] The eADC values were not effective in differentiating benign from malignant lung
lesions in our study. The quoted studies have used b-values of 500 to 800 s/mm2, and
they have conducted the study in the breast and renal tumors that do not have air
surrounding them or air-containing cavities within them. So, the measurement of eADC
values might have been affected due to susceptibility artifacts by air in our study.
A higher b-value (1000 s/mm2) would have resulted in more magnetic field inhomogeneities
affecting the measurement of eADC values. Further studies are required at 3 Tesla
with b = 1000 s/mm2 to comment on the usefulness of eADC value in lung lesion characterization.
The strengths of our study were that it was conducted in an advanced 3 Tesla MRI scanner
with high resolution and both qualitative and quantitative parameters were used for
lesion characterization. The major limitations were a small number of benign lesions,
which can be attributable to fewer biopsies done for suspected benign lesions and
patients not turning up for follow-up imaging, a small sample size, and a single-center
study. Another limitation of the study was the inclusion of lesions with air-filled
cavities that might generate artifactual values affecting the mean DWI and ADC values
and the final cutoff values. Further studies with more benign lesions are advised
in the future to see how it impacts the results. Further multicentric research can
throw light on LSR, LSAR, and ADC min as the potential MRI biomarkers for lung cancer.
