Evaluation of non-monoexponential diffusion models for hepatocellular carcinoma using b values up to 2000 s/mm² : A...

Non-monoexponential diffusion models are being used increasingly for the characterization and curative effect evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). But the fitting quality of the models and the repeatability of their parameters have not been assessed for HCC.

To evaluate kurtosis, stretched exponential, and statistical models for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of HCC, using b-values up to 2000 s/mm² , in terms of fitting quality and repeatability.

Prospective.

Eighteen patients with HCC.

Conventional and DW images (b = 0, 200, 500, 1000, 1500, 2000 s/mm² ) were acquired at 3.0T.

The parameters of the kurtosis, stretched exponential, and statistical models were calculated on regions of interest (ROIs) of each lesion.

The fitting quality was evaluated through comparing the fitting residuals produced on the average data of ROI between different models using a paired t-test or Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Repeatability of the fitted parameters at the median values on the voxelwise data of ROI was assessed using the within coefficient of variation (WCV), the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), and the 95% Bland-Altman limits of agreements (BA-LA). The repeatability was divided into four levels: excellent, good, acceptable, and poor, referring to the values of ICC and WCV.

Among three models, the stretched exponential model provided the best fit to HCC (P < 0.05), whereas the statistical model produced the largest fitting residuals (P < 0.05). The repeatability of K from the kurtosis model was excellent (ICC 0.915; WCV 8.79%), while the distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) from the stretched model was just acceptable (ICC 0.477; WCV 27.83%). The repeatability was good for other diffusion-related parameters.

Considering the model fit and repeatability, the kurtosis and stretched exponential models are the preferred models for the description of the DW signals of HCC with respect to the statistical model.

2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:297-304.