Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 19, 2026
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Whole-tumor histogram analysis of multiple non-Gaussian diffusion models at high b values for assessing cervical
Lu Yang1, Huijun Hu1, Xiaojun Yang1
1Department of Radiology, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Sun Yat-Sen University, No. 107 Yanjiang Road West, Guangzhou, 510120, Guangdong, China.
Purpose:
To assess the diagnostic potential of whole-tumor histogram analysis of multiple non-Gaussian diffusion models for differentiating cervical cancer (CC) aggressive status regarding of pathological types, differentiation degree, stage, and p16 expression.
Methods:
Patients were enrolled in this prospective single-center study from March 2022 to July 2023. Diffusion-weighted images (DWI) were obtained including 15 b-values (0 ~ 4000 s/mm2). Diffusion parameters derived from four non-Gaussian diffusion models including continuous-time random-walk (CTRW), diffusion-kurtosis imaging (DKI), fractional order calculus (FROC), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) were calculated, and their histogram features were analyzed. To select the most significant features and establish predictive models, univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression were performed. Finally, we evaluated the diagnostic performance of our models by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses.
Results:
89 women (mean age, 55 ± 11 years) with CC were enrolled in our study. The combined model, which incorporated the CTRW, DKI, FROC, and IVIM diffusion models, offered a significantly higher AUC than that from any individual models (0.836 vs. 0.664, 0.642, 0.651, 0.649, respectively; p < 0.05) in distinguishing cervical squamous cell cancer from cervical adenocarcinoma. To distinguish tumor differentiation degree, except the combined model showed a better predictive performance compared to the DKI model (AUC, 0.839 vs. 0.697, respectively; p < 0.05), no significant differences in AUCs were found among other individual models and combined model. To predict the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage, only DKI and FROC model were established and there was no significant difference in predictive performance among different models. In terms of predicting p16 expression, the predictive ability of DKI model is significantly lower than that of FROC and combined model (AUC, 0.693 vs. 0.850, 0.859, respectively; p < 0.05).
Conclusion:
Multiple non-Gaussian diffusion models with whole-tumor histogram analysis show great promise to assess the aggressive status of CC.
