He M, Xu J, Sun Z, Wang X, Wang J, Feng F, Xue H, Jin Z. Prospective Comparison of Reduced Field-of-View (rFOV) and Full FOV (fFOV) Diffusion-Weighted Imaging (DWI) in the Assessment of Insulinoma: Image Quality and Lesion Detection.
Acad Radiol 2020;
27:1572-1579. [PMID:
31954606 DOI:
10.1016/j.acra.2019.11.019]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/24/2019] [Revised: 11/27/2019] [Accepted: 11/27/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES
To prospectively compare the image quality (IQ) and lesion detection performance of reduced field-of-view (rFOV) and full FOV (fFOV) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences in detecting insulinomas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
From October 2017 to September 2018, 67 patients with suspected insulinomas were prospectively enrolled and underwent imaging with both types of DWI sequences. The slice thickness (4 mm) and slice gaps (1 mm) were the same for the two DWI sequences, and the TR/TE was 2235/56 ms for the rFOV sequence and 1892/63 ms for the fFOV sequence. Three radiologists independently assessed the imaging quality (IQ) subjectively with a 5-point scale and objectively with signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) measurements. The IQ scores, CNR, SNR, lesion detection rates, and ADC values were compared. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated, and the area under the curve (AUC) was used to compare the diagnostic performance.
RESULTS
Fifty patients were tumor positive, with 65 tumors (size: 1.31 ± 0.77 cm, range: 0.6-5.8 cm). The IQ score, SNR, and CNR were significantly higher for rFOV DWI than for fFOV DWI (IQ: 3.64 ± 0.487 vs 3.310 ± 0.577, SNR: 22.520 ± 8.690 vs 10.284 ± 3.321, CNR: 3.454 ± 2.642 vs 1.327 ± 2.801, and all p < 0.05). For lesions less than 1.5 cm (n = 55), the lesion detection rates of the rFOV were statistically improved compared to those of the fFOV (90.7% vs. 75.9%, p = 0.039). The sensitivity of lesion detection was significantly improved with the rFOV-DWI sequences compared to that with the fFOV-DWI sequences (0.924 vs. 0.773, p = 0.013). The ADC values of the two DWI sequences were consistent for insulinomas and normal parenchyma.
CONCLUSION
Considering the improvements in overall IQ and lesion detection and the consistency of ADC measurements, we suggest that rFOV DWI is a reliable auxiliary alternative to fFOV DWI for clinical practice in the detection of pancreatic insulinomas.
Collapse