Comparing the parameters of IVIM-MRI between diabetes mellitus with normal creatinine and healthy controls, we found that they may provide more useful information to assess renal function. IVIM-MRI can evaluating renal function of diabetes mellitus with normal creatinine noninvasively in order to diabetic nephropathy early detection and early prevention.
Methods
Thirty-three consecutive patients (13 men: 21 women, mean age, 67 years) with 17 cases of diabetes mellitus with normal creatinine (diabetic group) and 16 healthy controls (control group) were enrolled in this study and inspected IVIM-MR examination with 1.5-T MR imager from January 2016 to October 2017. MRI was performed using a 1.5-T MR imager (GE-Signa HDXT) in a protocol containing the routine T1WI, T2WI, IVIM (b = 0, 10, 30, 50, 80, 100, 120, 150, 180, 200, 300, 500, 800, 1000 s/mm2). IVIM parameters (ADC standard, D, D* and f) of diabetic group and control group were measured by using the FuncTool on GE AW 4.6 workstation. The SPSS17.0 statistical software has been used for the data analysis, p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Compared these parameters of the diabetic group and control group by Mann-Whitney test. The ROC curves of all the parameters were drew and analyzed. ICC test was performed to examine the consistency of the measurements between the two observers, ICC≥ 0.75 was defined as good, 0.75 > ICC ≥ 0.40 was as defined as general, ICC<0.4 was defined as bad.Results
The ICC values of the IVIM parameters were all greater than 0.75 in the two groups, exhibiting an amenable consistency. The D* value of diabetic group (median = 6.38×10-3 mm2/s, range = 2.36×10-3 mm2/s) were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than control group (median = 5.09×10-3 mm2/s, range = 8.43×10-3 mm2/s), while the ADC standard, D and f value of diabetic group were lower than that of control group, but with no significant differences (p > 0.05). The area under the ROC curve of D* value was 74.6%, When threshold value was 5.59×10-3 mm2/s, the sensitivity and specificity were 76.5% and 75.0%.1、 Bourillon C, Rahmouni A, Lin C, et al. Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-weighted Imaging of Multiple Myeloma Lesions: Correlation with Whole-Body Dynamic Contrast Agent-enhanced MR Imaging.[J]. Radiology, 2015, 277(3):773-83.
2、Marzi S, Stefanetti L, Sperati F, et al. Relationship between diffusion parameters derived from intravoxel incoherent motion MRI and perfusion measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of soft tissue tumors.[J]. Nmr in Biomedicine, 2016, 29(1):6.
3、Bokacheva L, Kaplan J B, Giri D D, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MRI at 3.0 T differentiates malignant breast lesions from benign lesions and breast parenchyma[J]. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Jmri, 2014, 40(4):813.
4、Gaing B, Sigmund E E, Huang W C, et al. Subtype differentiation of renal tumors using voxel-based histogram analysis of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters.[J]. Investigative Radiology, 2015, 50(3):144.