Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 9, 2025
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Accuracy of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging for differentiating benign and malignant pancreatic lesions: a
MeiLin Zhu1,2, ChuanDe Zhang1,2, JingXin Yan3
1Department of Radiology, Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital Affiliated to University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, 610072, China.
Background:
A variety of imaging techniques can be used to evaluate diffusion characteristics to differentiate malignant and benign pancreatic lesions. The diagnostic performance of diffusion parameters has not been systematic assessed.
Purpose:
We aimed to investigate the diagnostic efficacy of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) for pancreatic lesions.
Methods:
A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for studies from inception to March 30, 2020, which involves the quantitative diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in the pancreas. Studies were reviewed according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of articles was evaluated by the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUATAS-2). A bivariate random-effects model was used to evaluate pooled sensitivities and specificities. Univariable meta-regression analysis was used to test the effects of factors that contributed to the heterogeneity.
Results:
A total of 31 studies involving 1558 patients were ultimately eligible for data extraction. The lowest heterogeneity was found in specificity of perfusion fraction (f) with the I2 value was 17.97% and Cochran p value was 0.28. However, high heterogeneities were found for the other parameters (all I2 > 50%). There was no publication bias found in funnel plot (p = 0.30) for the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) parameter. The pooled sensitivities for ADC, f, pure diffusion coefficient (D), and pseudo diffusivity coefficient (D*) were 83%, 81%, 76%, and 84%, respectively. The pooled specificities for ADC, f, D, and D* were 87%, 83%, 69%, and 81% respectively. The areas under the curves for ADC, f, D, and D* were 0.92, 0.87, 0.79, and 0.87 respectively.
Conclusion:
Quantitative DWI and IVIM have a good diagnostic performance for differentiating malignant and benign pancreatic lesions.
Key Points:
• IVIM has high sensitivity and specificity (84% and 83%, respectively) for differential diagnosis of pancreatic lesions, which is comparable to that of the ADC (83% and 87%, respectively). • The ADC has an excellent diagnostic performance for differentiating malignant from benign IPMNs (sensitivity, 0.83; specificity, 0.92); the f has the best diagnostic performance for differentiating pancreatic carcinoma from PNET (sensitivity, 0.85; specificity, 0.85). • For the ADC, using a maximal b value < 800 s/mm2 has a higher diagnostic accuracy than ≥ 800 s/mm2; performing in a high field strength (3.0 T) system has a higher diagnostic accuracy than a low field strength (1.5 T) for pancreatic lesions.
