OBJECTIVES: To assess goodness-of-fit and repeatability of mono-exponential, stretched exponential and bi-exponential models of diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) data in primary and metastatic ovarian cancer. METHODS: Thirty-nine primary and metastatic lesions from thirty-one patients with stage III or IV ovarian cancer were examined before and after chemotherapy using DW-MRI with ten diffusion-weightings. The data were fitted with (a) a mono-exponential model to give the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), (b) a stretched exponential model to give the distributed diffusion coefficient (DDC) and stretching parameter (α), and (c) a bi-exponential model to give the diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion fraction (f) and pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*). RESULTS: Coefficients of variation, established from repeated baseline measurements, were: ADC 3.1%, DDC 4.3%, α 7.0%, D 13.2%, f 44.0%, D* 165.1%. The bi-exponential model was unsuitable in these data owing to poor repeatability. After excluding the bi-exponential model, analysis using Akaike Information Criteria showed that the stretched exponential model provided the better fit to the majority of pixels in 64% of lesions. CONCLUSIONS: The stretched exponential model provides the optimal fit to DW-MRI data from ovarian, omental and peritoneal lesions and lymph nodes in pre-treatment and post-treatment measurements with good repeatability. KEY POINTS: • DW-MRI data in ovarian cancer show deviation from mono-exponential behaviour • Parameters derived from the stretched exponential model showed good repeatability (CV 7%) • The bi-exponential model was unsuitable because of poor parameter repeatability • The stretched exponential model showed comparable repeatability to the mono-exponential model • The extra parameter (α) provides scope for investigation of heterogeneity or response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Winfield et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: