鉴别巨大枕大池与蛛网膜囊肿：定量扩散加权成像参数的诊断效用

Differentiating mega cisterna magna from cisterna magna arachnoid cysts: The diagnostic utility of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging parameters.

作者信息

Li Quanxiang, Feng Zhe, Cheng Haichao, Cao Xin, Ge Yaping, Shi Hao, Wang Jun-Ying

机构信息

Department of Radiology, TCM Hospital of Yiyuan County, Yiyuan County, Shandong, China.

Department of Radiology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

出版信息

J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2025 Jul;26(7):e70166. doi: 10.1002/acm2.70166.

DOI:10.1002/acm2.70166

PMID:40657690

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12257351/

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To explore the utility of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI)-derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and exponential apparent diffusion coefficient (eADC) parameters in differentiating mega cisterna magna (MCM) from cisterna magna arachnoid cysts (CMAC).

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of MRI data from 40 MCM patients, 46 CMAC patients (confirmed via clinical follow-up and imaging criteria), and 36 temporal arachnoid cysts (TAC) as controls was performed. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare ADC and eADC values among the three groups.

RESULTS

The eADC values of MCM, CMAC, and TAC were (3.75 ± 0.27) × 10, (4.53 ± 0.54)×10, and (4.35 ± 0.30) ×10 mm/s, respectively. There was no significant difference in the eADC value between CMAC and TAC (p = 0.191). However, the eADC value of MCM was significantly different from the two groups (p = 0.000). The ADC values of MCM, CMAC, and TAC were (3.30 ± 0.08) × 10, (3.11 ± 0.12) ×10, and (2.97 ± 0.71) × 10mm/s, respectively. Significant differences in ADC were observed between MCM and both CMAC and TAC (p = 0.000/0.003).

CONCLUSION

DWI-derived ADC and eADC parameters can effectively differentiate mega cisterna magna from cisterna magna arachnoid cysts.

摘要

目的

探讨弥散加权成像（DWI）衍生的表观扩散系数（ADC）和指数表观扩散系数（eADC）参数在鉴别巨大枕大池（MCM）与枕大池蛛网膜囊肿（CMAC）中的应用价值。

方法

对40例MCM患者、46例CMAC患者（经临床随访和影像学标准确诊）以及36例颞叶蛛网膜囊肿（TAC）作为对照的MRI数据进行回顾性分析。采用独立样本t检验比较三组之间的ADC和eADC值。

结果

MCM、CMAC和TAC的eADC值分别为（3.75 ± 0.27）×10、（4.53 ± 0.54）×10和（4.35 ± 0.30）×10 mm/s。CMAC和TAC的eADC值之间无显著差异（p = 0.191）。然而，MCM的eADC值与这两组有显著差异（p = 0.000）。MCM、CMAC和TAC的ADC值分别为（3.30 ± 0.08）×10、（3.11 ± 0.12）×10和（2.97 ± 0.71）×10 mm/s。MCM与CMAC和TAC之间的ADC均存在显著差异（p = 0.000/0.003）。