The role of apparent diffusion coefficient values in characterization of solid focal liver lesions: a prospective and comparative clinical study

Abstract

We evaluated and compared the diagnostic accuracy (DA) of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values with that of lesion-to-liver ADC ratios in the characterization of solid focal liver lesions (FLLs). This prospective study was approved by the Institutional Human Ethics Board, after waiving written informed consent. Diffusion-weighted imaging and other routine magnetic resonance imaging were performed on 142 consecutive patients with suspected liver disease. The mean ADC values and lesion-to-liver ADC ratios were compared between benign and malignant solid FLLs. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed. The study participants included 46 patients (28 men, 18 women; mean age, 52.5 years) with 57 solid FLLs (32 malignant and 25 benign FLLs). The mean ADC values and ADC ratios of benign solid FLLs were significantly higher than those of malignant lesions (P<0.01). The difference between the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the ADC values (0.699) and ADC ratios (0.752) was not significant. Our study suggests that the DA of the ADC ratio is not significantly higher than that of ADC in characterizing solid FLLs.

Assessment of different mathematical models for diffusion‐weighted imaging as quantitative biomarkers for differentiating benign from malignant solid hepatic lesions

“…The results of this study showed that utilizing the monoexponential DWI, the ADC value of benign hepatic lesions was significantly higher than that of normal hepatic parenchyma ( Table 3, P < .001), which is consistent with the results of previous studies. [12][13][14][15][16][17] However, the results of this study also showed that the ADC values of malignant hepatic lesions and normal hepatic parenchyma were not statistically significant ( Table 3, P = .522), which is inconsistent with the results of previous studies. This may be related to the different malignant lesions included in this study, including primary and metastatic disease.…”

Genomics Education in the Era of Personal Genomics: Academic, Professional, and Public Considerations

“…Students felt that learning genomics helped prepare them for future academic study [37] and created a more positive learning experience [40]. Thus, these publications indicate that incorporation of genomic education can be beneficial for high school student learning [38,39,44].…”

“…Genomic education in high school is also important because high school biology is frequently not only the initial, but also the final formal exposure to genomics for many Americans [33]. Many high school students have the interest, maturity, and intelligence to learn and understand genomics, yet few studies involving high school students and genomic education have been conducted in the past five years (Table 1) [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]. Each of these studies incorporated teaching genomic principles to high school students.…”

“…Each of these studies incorporated teaching genomic principles to high school students. Of the nine studies identified, three utilized genomic online tools to teach concepts [36,37,39]. Many of the tools utilized in these studies, such as the NCBI database and next generation sequencing, are critical for genomic studies in college.…”

Magnesium isoglycyrrhizinate positively affects concanavalin A-induced liver damage by regulating macrophage polarization

“…Meanwhile, nitric oxide may be a potential mediator of hepatic inflammation and fibrogenesis in AIH. The serum nitric oxide metabolites like inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and nitric oxide activity can reflect oxidant stress in the liver and detect the inflammation and disease progression (Lloyd, Phillips, Cooper, & Dunbar, 2008;Yang, Zhang, Han, Jin, & Yang, 2017). In addition, various surface markers and cytokines are expressed and secreted, respectively, by the classical activation (M1) and the alternative activation phenotypes (M2), both of which have variable impacts in the context of immunoregulation (Ivashkiv, 2013;Ka, Daumas, Textoris, & Mege, 2014;Ying, Cheruku, Bazer, Safe, & Zhou, 2013).…”