ABSTRACT
Background: An accurate and noninvasive method to determine the preoperative clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) pathological grade is of great significance for surgical program selection and prognosis assessment. Previous studies have shown that diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has moderate value in grading ccRCC. But DWI cannot reflect the diffusion of tissue accurately because it is calculated using a monoexponential model. Intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) is the biexponential model of DWI. Only a few studies have examined the value of IVIM in grading ccRCC yet with inconsistent results. This study aimed to compare the value of DWI and IVIM in grading ccRCC. Methods: In this study, 96 patients with pathologically confirmed ccRCC were evaluated by DWI and IVIM on a 3-T scanner. According to the World Health Organization/International Society of Urological Pathology (WHO/ISUP) classification system, these patients were divided into two groups: low-grade (grade I and II) and high-grade (grade III and IV) ccRCC. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction of pseudodiffusion (f) values were calculated. The Mann-Whitney test, receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and the Delong test were used for statistical evaluations. Results: (I) According to the WHO/ISUP nuclear grading system, 96 patients were divided into low-grade (grade I and II, 45 patients) and high-grade (grade III and IV, 51 patients) groups. (II) Compared with patients of low-grade ccRCC, the ADC and D values of those with high-grade ccRCC decreased while the D* and f values increased (P<0.05). (III) The cutoff value of the ADC, D, D*, and f in distinguishing low-grade from high-grade ccRCC was 1.50×10-3 mm2/s, 1.12×10-3 mm2/s, and 33.19×10-3 mm2/s, 0.31, respectively; the area under the curve (AUC) for the ADC, D, D*, and f values was 0.871, 0.942, 0.621, and 0.894, respectively, with the AUC of the D value being the highest; the sensitivity for the ADC, D, D*, and f values was 94.12%, 92.16%, 47.06%, and 92.16%, respectively; and the specificity for the ADC, D, D*, and f values was 66.67%, 91.11%, 77.78%, and 73.33%, respectively. (IV) Based on the Delong test, AUCD was significantly higher than AUCADC (P=0.02) and AUCD* (P<0.001), but there was no significant difference between AUCD and AUC f (P=0.18). Conclusions: Compared with the monoexponential model DWI, the biexponential model IVIM was more accurate in grading ccRCC.