No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 18, 2026.

Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and cellularity is different in several tumors: a meta-analysis

Alexey Surov, Hans Jonas Meyer, Andreas Wienke

Oncotarget · 2017

Abstract

// Alexey Surov 1, * , Hans Jonas Meyer 1, * and Andreas Wienke 2, * 1 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany 2 Institute of Medical Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Informatics, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany * All authors contributed equally for this work Correspondence to: Alexey Surov, email: Alexey.Surov@medizin.uni-leipzig.de Keywords: DWI, MRI, ADC, cellularity, tumor Received: March 31, 2017 Accepted: April 27, 2017 Published: May 10, 2017 ABSTRACT The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide clinical evidence regarding relationship between ADC and cellularity in different tumors based on large patient data. Medline library was screened for associations between ADC and cell count in different tumors up to September 2016. Only publications in English were extracted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) was used for the research. Overall, 39 publications with 1530 patients were included into the analysis. The following data were extracted from the literature: authors, year of publication, number of patients, tumor type, and correlation coefficients. The pooled correlation coefficient for all studies was ρ = -0.56 (95 % CI = [−0.62; −0.50]),. Correlation coefficients ranged from ρ =−0.25 (95 % CI = [−0.63; 0.12]) in lymphoma to ρ=−0.66 (95 % CI = [−0.85; −0.47]) in glioma. Other coefficients were as follows: ovarian cancer, ρ = −0.64 (95% CI = [−0.76; −0.52]); lung cancer, ρ = −0.63 (95 % CI = [−0.78; −0.48]); uterine cervical cancer, ρ = −0.57 (95 % CI = [−0.80; −0.34]); prostatic cancer, ρ = −0.56 (95 % CI = [−0.69; −0.42]); renal cell carcinoma, ρ = −0.53 (95 % CI = [−0.93; −0.13]); head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, ρ = −0.53 (95 % CI = [-0.74; −0.32]); breast cancer, ρ = −0.48 (95 % CI = [−0.74; −0.23]); and meningioma, ρ = -0.45 (95 % CI = [−0.73; −0.17]).

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 18, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

INTRODUCTION

1Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique based on measure of water diffusion in tissues. Beside diagnostic potential, DWI

2can distinguish malignant from benign lesions. As reported previously, malignant tumors showed lower apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in comparison to benign lesions.

3According to the literature, DWI can also provide additional information about tissue microstructure. Experimental studies showed a strong association between ADC and cell count in vitro. It has been shown that increase of cell density restricted water diffusion and decreased ADC. However, published data of clinical investigations were inconsistent. While some authors identified significant correlations between ADC and cellularity in different tumor, other did not. Moreover, there was a wide spectrum of reported correlation coefficients ranging from 0.1 to -0.79. Furthermore, the number of investigated patients/tumors in most studies was up to 50. Only few reports analyzed relative large collectives ranging from 102 to 138 patients. Therefore, the reported data cannot be considered as evident. Overall, these facts question the possibility to use ADC as a surrogate biomarker for cellularity in clinical practice.

4The purpose of this meta-analysis was to provide clinical evidence regarding relationship between ADC and cellularity in different tumors based on large patient data.

RESULTS

5Overall, the pooled correlation coefficient for all studies (Figure 1) was ρ = −0.56, (95 % CI = [−0.62; −0.50]), heterogeneity τ2 = 0.02, (p < 0.00001), I2 = 67 %, test for overall effect Z = 18.01 (p < 0.00001).

6On the next step, correlation coefficients for every tumor entities were calculated. For this analysis, only data for primary tumors were acquired (Figure 2). The calculated correlation coefficients ranged from ρ = −0.25 (95 % CI = [−0.63; 0.12]) in lymphoma to ρ = −0.66 (95 % CI = [−0.85; −0.47]) in glioma. Other coefficients were as follows: ovarian cancer, ρ = −0.64 (95% CI = [−0.76; −0.52]); lung cancer, ρ = −0.63 (95 % CI = [−0.78; −0.48]); uterine cervical cancer, ρ = −0.57 (95 % CI = [−0.80; −0.34]); prostatic cancer, ρ = −0.56 (95 % CI = [−0.69; −0.42]); renal cell carcinoma, ρ = −0.53 (95 % CI = [−0.93; −0.13]); head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), ρ = −0.53 (95 % CI = [−0.74; −0.32]); breast cancer, ρ = −0.48 (95 % CI = [−0.74; −0.23]); meningioma, ρ = −0.45 (95 % CI = [−0.73; −0.17]).

DISCUSSION

7The present analysis provides evidence regarding correlation between ADC, in particular ADCmean, and cellularity in different tumors based on a large sample.

8Previously, numerous studies investigated associations between ADC and cell density in several tumors. Overall, most reports showed significant correlations between these parameters. So, Woodhams et al. found a strong inverse correlation ( ρ = −0.75, p = 0.001) between ADC and cell count in mucinous breast carcinoma. Based on the reported data, it has been postulated that DWI, namely ADC is an imaging tool to estimate tumor cellularity. However, there were also reports, in which no significant correlations between ADC values and cell count were found. For example, in different lymphomas, the correlation coefficient between cell count and ADC was ρ = 0.1 (p = 0.58). Similar negative results were published for head and neck carcinoma (ρ = −0.418, p = 0.201), meningioma ( ρ = −0.20, p = 0.164), and breast cancer (ρ = 0.048, p = 0.812). Some previous reports attempted to explain their negative findings by small number of patients. However, another cause of the controversial results in the literature is possible. Presumably, different tumors may have also different associations between ADC and tumor cell count. Our results confirmed this assumption. As seen, ADC showed a moderate inverse correlation with cellularity in the general collective. However, this finding did not apply for each tumor entity, and, therefore, cannot be used in clinical practice. We found that the correlation ADC vs cellularity ranged significantly in different tumors. It was weak in lymphomas, weak-to-moderate in breast cancer and meningiomas, moderate in most investigated epithelial tumors, and strong in gliomas, ovarian cancer, and lung cancer. It is still unclear, why ADC correlates well with cell count in some tumors, whereas in other does not. Presumably, not only cell count, but also other histopathological features, such as extracellular matrix, nucleic areas, ratio stroma/parenchyma, and /or microvessel density may play a role here. In fact, some studies found statistically significant associations between nucleic size and ADC in several lesions. Overall, our findings suggest that ADC does not reflect cellularity in all tumors.

9Our analysis also identified another problem. There are no reports regarding associations between ADC and cellularity in most gastrointestinal tumors: esophageal cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal carcinoma, gastrointestinal stromal tumors, hepatocellular carcinoma, pancreatic carcinomas, and gall bladder cancer. Also in malignancies of cutis, such as malignant melanoma, no reports about ADC/cell count could be identified. Except renal cell carcinoma and prostatic cancer, no data exist for urological malignancies. In addition, several tumors involved into the present meta-analysis, for example, HNSCC, renal cell carcinoma, lung cancer, and lymphomas contained small number of patients. This relativizes the calculated results. Finally, for some tumors, such as pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, soft tissue sarcomas, and thyroid cancer, only one report was published, respectively. Therefore, no evident data could be estimated for these entities. Clearly, further researches are needed to investigate possible associations between ADC and cellularity in these tumors. Thereafter, a similar meta-analysis is also needed to prove new data.

10In conclusion, different inverse correlations were identified between ADC and cell count in the analyzed tumors. ADC correlated strongly with cell count in gliomas, followed by ovarian cancer, and lung cancer. Therefore, in these tumors, ADC can be used as an imaging marker to estimate cellularity. Moderate inverse correlations were identified between ADC and cell count in prostatic cancer, renal cell carcinoma, uterine cervical cancer, and head/neck squamous cell carcinomas.

11Furthermore, weak-to-moderate correlations were found in breast cancer and meningioma. This finding relativizes the possibility of ADC use to predict cellularity in these tumors. Finally, weak correlation was identified in lymphomas. Therefore, ADC cannot be used as a cellularity biomarker in this entity.

12No evident data can be provided to date for other malignancies.

Data acquisition and proving

13MEDLINE library was screened for associations between ADC and cell count in different tumors up to September 2016. The following search words were used: “DWI or diffusion weighted imaging or diffusion-weighted imaging or ADC or apparent diffusion coefficient AND cellularity or cell density or cell count or cell number”. Only publications in English were extracted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (PRISMA) was used for the research.

14After exclusion of duplicates, a total of 494 publications was identified. These reports were involved into the further analysis. For this work, only data regarding ADCmean derived from diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) were acquired. Papers which did not contain correlation coefficients between ADC and cell count were excluded. In addition, data retrieved from diffusion tensor imaging and other DWI parameters, such as D, ADCmax, and ADCmin were also excluded. Finally, we excluded experimental animals and in vitro studies. Overall, 455 publications were excluded. Therefore, the present analysis comprises 39 publications with 1530 patients. The following data were extracted from the literature: authors, year of publication, number of patients, tumor type, and correlation coefficients. Most frequently, different breast, followed by several brain tumors, uterine sarcomas, uterine cervical cancer, prostatic cancer, and ovarian cancer were reported (Table 1). Other tumors were rarer.

Meta-analysis

15The methodological quality of the 39 included studies was independently checked by two observers (A.S. and H.J.M.) using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies (QUADAS) instrument according to previous descriptions. The results of QUADAS proving are shown in Table 2.

16Spearman's correlation coefficient was used to analyze associations between ADCmean and cell count. The reported Pearson correlation coefficients in some publications were converted into Spearman correlation coefficients as reported previously.

17The meta-analysis was undertaken by using RevMan 5.3. Heterogeneity was calculated by means of the inconsistency index I2. In a subgroup analysis studies were stratified by tumor type. Furthermore, DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models with inverse-variance weights were used without any further correction.

References 54

1.
Fornasa F. Diffusion-weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging: What Makes Water Run Fast or Slow? J Clin Imaging Sci. 2011;1:27.
Not in our library10.4103/2156-7514.81294
2.
Wang J, Takashima S, Takayama F, Kawakami S, Saito A, Matsushita T, Momose M, Ishiyama T. Head and neck lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology. 2001;220:621-30.
Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2202010063
3.
Sasaki M, Eida S, Sumi M, Nakamura T. Apparent diffusion coefficient for sinonasal diseases: differentiation of benign and malignant lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2011;32:1100-06.
Not in our library10.3174/ajnr.a2434
4.
Xu J, Does MD, Gore JC. Sensitivity of MR diffusion measurements to variations in intracellular structure: effects of nuclear size. Magn Reson Med. 2009;61:828-33.
Not in our library10.1002/mrm.21793
5.
Galons JP, Lope-Piedrafita S, Divijak JL, Corum C, Gillies RJ, Trouard TP. Uncovering of intracellular water in cultured cells. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54:79-86.
Not in our library10.1002/mrm.20565
6.
Harkins KD, Galons JP, Secomb TW, Trouard TP. Assessment of the effects of cellular tissue properties on ADC measurements by numerical simulation of water diffusion. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62:1414-22.
Not in our library10.1002/mrm.22155
7.
Barajas RF, Rubenstein JL, Chang JS, Hwang J, Cha S. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging derived apparent diffusion coefficient is predictive of clinical outcome in primary central nervous system lymphoma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2010;31:60-66.
Not in our library10.3174/ajnr.a1750
8.
Borren A, Moman MR, Groenendaal G, Boeken Kruger AE, van Diest PJ, van der Groep P, van der Heide UA, van Vulpen M, Philippens ME. Why prostate tumour delineation based on apparent diffusion coefficient is challenging: an exploration of the tissue microanatomy. Acta Oncol. 2013;52:1629-36.
Not in our library10.3109/0284186x.2013.787164
9.
Driessen JP, Caldas-Magalhaes J, Janssen LM, Pameijer FA, Kooij N, Terhaard CH, Grolman W, Philippens ME. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in laryngeal and hypopharyngeal carcinoma: association between apparent diffusion coefficient and histologic findings. Radiology. 2014;272:456-63.
Not in our library10.1148/radiol.14131173
10.
Wu X, Pertovaara H, Dastidar P, Vornanen M, Paavolainen L, Marjomäki V, Järvenpää R, Eskola H, Kellokumpu-Lehtinen PL. ADC measurements in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma: a DWI and cellularity study. Eur J Radiol. 2013;82:e158-64.
Not in our library10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.11.021
11.
Yoshikawa MI, Ohsumi S, Sugata S, Kataoka M, Takashima S, Mochizuki T, Ikura H, Imai Y. Relation between cancer cellularity and apparent diffusion coefficient values using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer. Radiat Med. 2008;26:222-26.
Not in our library10.1007/s11604-007-0218-3
12.
Ellingson BM, Malkin MG, Rand SD, Connelly JM, Quinsey C, LaViolette PS, Bedekar DP, Schmainda KM. Validation of functional diffusion maps (fDMs) as a biomarker for human glioma cellularity. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:538-48.
Not in our library10.1002/jmri.22068
13.
Hatakenaka M, Soeda H, Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Kamitani T, Oda Y, Tsuneyoshi M, Honda H. Apparent diffusion coefficients of breast tumors: clinical application. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2008;7:23-29.
Not in our library10.2463/mrms.7.23
14.
Shin HJ, Kim SH, Lee HJ, Gong G, Baek S, Chae EY, Choi WJ, Cha JH, Kim HH. Tumor apparent diffusion coefficient as an imaging biomarker to predict tumor aggressiveness in patients with estrogen-receptor-positive breast cancer. NMR Biomed. 2016;29:1070-78.
Not in our library10.1002/nbm.3571
15.
Tasaki A, Asatani MO, Umezu H, Kashima K, Enomoto T, Yoshimura N, Aoyama H. Differential diagnosis of uterine smooth muscle tumors using diffusion-weighted imaging: correlations with the apparent diffusion coefficient and cell density. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:1742-52.
Not in our library10.1007/s00261-014-0324-5
16.
Zhao SH, Qiang JW, Zhang GF, Ma FH, Cai SQ, Li HM, Wang L. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial tumours of the ovary: pathological correlation. Eur Radiol. 2014;24:2292-99.
Not in our library10.1007/s00330-014-3236-4
17.
Chen L, Zhang J, Chen Y, Wang W, Zhou X, Yan X, Wang J. Relationship between apparent diffusion coefficient and tumour cellularity in lung cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9:e99865.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0099865
18.
Eidel O, Neumann JO, Burth S, Kieslich PJ, Jungk C, Sahm F, Kickingereder P, Kiening K, Unterberg A, Wick W, Schlemmer HP, Bendszus M, Radbruch A. Automatic Analysis of Cellularity in Glioblastoma and Correlation with ADC Using trajectory analysis and automatic nuclei counting. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0160250.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0160250
19.
Fatima Z, Motosugi U, Waqar AB, Hori M, Ishigame K, Oishi N, Onodera T, Yagi K, Katoh R, Araki T. Associations among q-space MRI, diffusion-weighted MRI and histopathological parameters in meningiomas. Eur Radiol. 2013;23:2258-63.
Not in our library10.1007/s00330-013-2823-0
20.
Gibbs P, Liney GP, Pickles MD, Zelhof B, Rodrigues G, Turnbull LW. Correlation of ADC and T2 measurements with cell density in prostate cancer at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol. 2009;44:572-76.
Not in our library10.1097/rli.0b013e3181b4c10e
21.
Glazer DI, Hassanzadeh E, Fedorov A, Olubiyi OI, Goldberger SS, Penzkofer T, Flood TA, Masry P, Mulkern RV, Hirsch MS, Tempany CM, Fennessy FM. Diffusion-weighted endorectal MR imaging at 3T for prostate cancer: correlation with tumor cell density and percentage Gleason pattern on whole mount pathology. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42:918-25.
Not in our library10.1007/s00261-016-0942-1
22.
Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, Gamanagatti S, Seth A, Iyer VK, Das P. Diffusion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype. Acta Radiol. 2012;53:349-58.
Not in our library10.1258/ar.2011.110415
23.
Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, Gao YG, An NY, Ma L, Mahankali S, Gao JH. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;16:172-78.
Not in our library10.1002/jmri.10140
24.
Gupta RK, Cloughesy TF, Sinha U, Garakian J, Lazareff J, Rubino G, Rubino L, Becker DP, Vinters HV, Alger JR. Relationships between choline magnetic resonance spectroscopy, apparent diffusion coefficient and quantitative histopathology in human glioma. J Neurooncol. 2000;50:215-26.
Not in our library10.1023/a:1006431120031
25.
Humphries PD, Sebire NJ, Siegel MJ, Olsen ØE. Tumors in pediatric patients at diffusion-weighted MR imaging: apparent diffusion coefficient and tumor cellularity. Radiology. 2007;245:848-54.
Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2452061535
26.
Kishimoto K, Tajima S, Maeda I, Takagi M, Ueno T, Suzuki N, Nakajima Y. Endometrial cancer: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) with tumor cellularity and tumor grade. Acta Radiol. 2016;57:1021-28.
Not in our library10.1177/0284185115612249
27.
Kono K, Inoue Y, Nakayama K, Shakudo M, Morino M, Ohata K, Wakasa K, Yamada R. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:1081-88.
Not in our library
28.
Koral K, Mathis D, Gimi B, Gargan L, Weprin B, Bowers DC, Margraf L. Common pediatric cerebellar tumors: correlation between cell densities and apparent diffusion coefficient metrics. Radiology. 2013;268:532-37.
Not in our library10.1148/radiol.13121362
29.
Kyriazi S, Nye E, Stamp G, Collins DJ, Kaye SB, deSouza NM. Value of diffusion-weighted imaging for assessing site-specific response of advanced ovarian cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy: correlation of apparent diffusion coefficients with epithelial and stromal densities on histology. Cancer Biomark. 2010;7:201-10.
Not in our library10.3233/cbm-2010-0194
30.
Liu Y, Bai R, Sun H, Liu H, Wang D. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of uterine cervical cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2009;33:858-62.
Not in our library10.1097/rct.0b013e31819e93af
31.
Liu Y, Ye Z, Sun H, Bai R. Clinical Application of Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in uterine cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2015;25:1073-78.
Not in our library10.1097/igc.0000000000000472
32.
Manenti G, Di Roma M, Mancino S, Bartolucci DA, Palmieri G, Mastrangeli R, Miano R, Squillaci E, Simonetti G. Malignant renal neoplasms: correlation between ADC values and cellularity in diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. Radiol Med (Torino). 2008;113:199-213.
Not in our library10.1007/s11547-008-0246-9
33.
Matoba M, Tonami H, Kondou T, Yokota H, Higashi K, Toga H, Sakuma T. Lung carcinoma: diffusion-weighted mr imaging—preliminary evaluation with apparent diffusion coefficient. Radiology. 2007;243:570-77.
Not in our library10.1148/radiol.2432060131
34.
Onishi N, Kanao S, Kataoka M, Iima M, Sakaguchi R, Kawai M, Kataoka TR, Mikami Y, Toi M, Togashi K. Apparent diffusion coefficient as a potential surrogate marker for Ki-67 index in mucinous breast carcinoma. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015;41:610-15.
Not in our library10.1002/jmri.24615
35.
Plank C, Koller A, Mueller-Mang C, Bammer R, Thurnher MM. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) in the evaluation of epidural spinal lesions. Neuroradiology. 2007;49:977-85.
Not in our library10.1007/s00234-007-0275-4
36.
Schob S, Meyer J, Gawlitza M, Frydrychowicz C, Müller W, Preuss M, Bure L, Quäschling U, Hoffmann KT, Surov A. Diffusion-Weighted MRI reflects proliferative activity in primary CNS Lymphoma. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0161386.
Not in our library10.1371/journal.pone.0161386
37.
Schob S, Voigt P, Bure L, Meyer HJ, Wickenhauser C, Behrmann C, Höhn A, Kachel P, Dralle H, Hoffmann KT, Surov A. Diffusion-Weighted imaging using a readout-segmented, multishot EPI sequence at 3 T distinguishes between morphologically differentiated and undifferentiated subtypes of thyroid carcinoma-a preliminary study. Transl Oncol. 2016;9:403-10.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tranon.2016.09.001
38.
Surov A, Gottschling S, Mawrin C, Prell J, Spielmann RP, Wienke A, Fiedler E. Diffusion-weighted imaging in meningioma: prediction of tumor grade and association with histopathological parameters. Transl Oncol. 2015;8:517-23.
Not in our library10.1016/j.tranon.2015.11.012
39.
Surov A, Stumpp P, Meyer HJ, Gawlitza M, Höhn AK, Boehm A, Sabri O, Kahn T, Purz S. Simultaneous (18)F-FDG-PET/MRI: associations between diffusion, glucose metabolism and histopathological parameters in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Oral Oncol. 2016;58:14-20.
Not in our library10.1016/j.oraloncology.2016.04.009
40.
Wang XZ, Wang B, Gao ZQ, Liu JG, Liu ZQ, Niu QL, Sun ZK, Yuan YX. Diffusion-weighted imaging of prostate cancer: correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient values and tumor proliferation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;29:1360-66.
Not in our library10.1002/jmri.21797

All 54 references

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.