Computed Diffusion‐Weighted Images of Rectal Cancer: Image Quality, Restaging, and Treatment Response after Neoadjuvant Therapy

Abstract

BackgroundComputed diffusion‐weighted images (cDWI) of random b value could be derived from acquired DWI (aDWI) with at least two different b values. However, its comparison between aDWI and cDWI images in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) patients after neoadjuvant therapy (NT) is needed.PurposeTo compare the cDWI and aDWI in image quality, restaging, and treatment response of LARC after NT.Study TypeRetrospective.PopulationEighty‐seven consecutive patients.Field Strength/Sequence3.0 T/DWI.AssessmentAll patients underwent two DWI sequences, including conventional acquisition with b = 0 and 1000 s/mm2 (aDWIb1000) and another with b = 0 and 700 s/mm2 on a 3.0‐T MR scanner. The images of the latter were used to compute the diffusion images with b = 1000 s/mm2 (cDWIb1000). Four radiologists with 3, 4, 14, and 25 years of experience evaluated the images to compare the image quality, TN restaging performance, and treatment response between aDWIb1000 and cDWIb1000.Statistical TestsInterclass correlation coefficients, weighted κ coefficient, paired Wilcoxon, and McNemar or Fisher test were used. A significance level of 0.05 was used.ResultsThe cDWIb1000 images were superior to the aDWIb1000 ones in both subjective and objective image quality. In T restaging, the overall diagnostic accuracy of cDWIb1000 images was higher than that of aDWIb1000 images (57.47% vs. 49.43%, P = 0.289 for the inexperienced radiologist; 77.01% vs. 63.22%, significant for the experienced radiologist), with better sensitivity in determining ypT0‐Tis tumors. Additionally, it increased the sensitivity in detecting ypT2 tumors for the inexperienced radiologist and ypT3 tumors for the experienced radiologist. N restaging and treatment response were found to be similar between two sequences for both radiologists.Data ConclusionCompared to aDWIb1000 images, the computed ones might serve as a wise approach, providing comparable or better image quality, restaging performance, and treatment response assessment for LARC after NT.Level of Evidence3Technical Efficacy Stage2