Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Background: To compare three different curve-fitting methods for intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) analysis in breast cancer.
Methods: Diffusion-weighted imaging was acquired in 30 patients with breast cancer using seven b-values (0-800 s/mm(2) ). Three curve-fitting methods were used for biexponential IVIM analysis: a. Direct estimation of D (diffusion coefficient), D* (pseudodiffusion coefficient) and f (perfusion fraction) (Method 1), b. Estimation of D first and then D* and f (Method 2), c. Estimation of D and f first and then D* (Method 3). Goodness-of-fit, parameter precision (coefficient of variance [CV]), parameter difference and correlation with relative enhancement ratio (RER) and initial area under the curve (IAUC) from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI of the three methods were determined and compared.
Results: Among the three biexponential methods, Method 1 best described most of the pixels (63.20% based on R(2) ; 44.52% based on Akaike Information Criteria). The CV of D calculated from Method 2/3 (14.95%/13.90%), the CV of D* from Method 2 (77.04%) and the CV of f from Method 3 (80.87%) were the lowest among the three methods. Significant difference was observed for each IVIM-derived parameter calculated from all the three methods (P = 0.000-0.005). Only the perfusion-related f value calculated from Method 2 was correlated with RER (r = 0.548; P = 0.002) or IAUC (r = 0.561; P = 0.001).
Conclusion: IVIM-derived parameters differ depending on the calculation methods. The two-step fitting method with D value estimation first was correlated with DCE MRI perfusion.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24799 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!