Effect of combination and number of b values in IVIM analysis with post-processing methodology: simulation and clinical study.
Biexponential model
Diffusion-weighted imaging
Intravoxel incoherent motion
Prostate cancer
Total variation penalty function
b values
Journal
Magma (New York, N.Y.)
ISSN: 1352-8661
Titre abrégé: MAGMA
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9310752
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Oct 2019
Oct 2019
Historique:
received:
08
03
2019
accepted:
04
06
2019
revised:
10
05
2019
pubmed:
20
6
2019
medline:
18
3
2020
entrez:
20
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To investigate the effect of number and combination of b values used on the accuracy of estimated Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) parameters using simulation and clinical data. Simulations with seven combinations of b values were performed for 4, 6, 8, and 13 numbers of b values with six different values of D, D*, and f parameters. Two methodologies were implemented for IVIM analysis: standard biexponential model (BE) and biexponential model with total variation penalty function (BE + TV). Clinical data set of six patients with prostate cancer was retrospectively analyzed using 4, 8, and 13 b values. BE + TV method showed lesser error and lower variability in simulation and clinical data, respectively. 8 and 13 b values showed good agreement in the values of parameters estimated with high correlation coefficient (ρ = 0.83-0.93). Clinical data showed high spurious noise with lower b values [4 b values leading to high coefficient of variation (CV); however, substantially, lower CV was observed with 8 and 13 b values]. BE model with TV penalty function is robust to combination of b values used for IVIM analysis. Combination of 8 b values provided a reasonably good accuracy in IVIM parameters.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31214819
doi: 10.1007/s10334-019-00764-0
pii: 10.1007/s10334-019-00764-0
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
519-527Références
Magn Reson Med. 1999 Sep;42(3):515-25
pubmed: 10467296
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Aug;189(2):323-8
pubmed: 17646457
Phys Med Biol. 2008 Sep 7;53(17):4777-807
pubmed: 18701771
Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Jul;29(6):766-76
pubmed: 21549538
Magn Reson Med. 2012 Jan;67(1):89-97
pubmed: 21702062
Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Oct;29(8):1053-8
pubmed: 21855241
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Feb;69(2):553-62
pubmed: 22488794
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Oct;199(4):W496-500
pubmed: 22997399
Eur Radiol. 2013 Feb;23(2):428-34
pubmed: 23052642
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Mar;39(3):512-8
pubmed: 23723087
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 May;39(5):1213-22
pubmed: 24127398
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jan;73(1):306-11
pubmed: 24478175
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 May;41(5):1209-17
pubmed: 25044653
Magn Reson Med. 2015 May;73(5):1954-69
pubmed: 25045885
Eur J Radiol. 2014 Dec;83(12):2109-2113
pubmed: 25277521
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Oct;74(4):1077-85
pubmed: 25302780
Med Phys. 2017 Nov;44(11):5849-5858
pubmed: 28817196
MAGMA. 2018 Apr;31(2):269-283
pubmed: 29075909
Radiol Med. 2019 Feb;124(2):87-93
pubmed: 30276599
Radiology. 1988 Aug;168(2):497-505
pubmed: 3393671
Magn Reson Med. 1995 Dec;34(6):910-4
pubmed: 8598820