# Sample strategies for the assessment of the apparent diffusion coefficient in single large intracranial space-occupying lesions of dogs and cats

## TL;DR

This study shows that how you measure diffusion in brain tumors of dogs and cats affects the results, highlighting the importance of sampling methods.

## Contribution

The study identifies significant variability in ADC values based on different sampling strategies in veterinary neuroimaging.

## Key findings

- ADC values varied significantly between different sampling methods like M5 vs. M2 and M4 vs. M2.
- Excluding homogeneous lesions revealed additional significant differences in sampling methods.
- ADC variability depends heavily on the chosen sampling strategy.

## Abstract

Diffusion-weighted imaging is increasingly available for brain investigation. Image interpretation of intracranial space-occupying lesions often includes the derived apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) analysis. In human medicine, ADC can help discriminate between benign and malignant lesions in intracranial tumors. This study investigates the difference in ADC values depending on the sample strategies of image analysis. MRI examination, including diffusion-weighted images of canine and feline patients presented between 2015 and 2020, were reviewed retrospectively. Patients with single, large intracranial space-occupying lesions were included. Lesions homogeneity was subjectively scored. ADC values were calculated using six different methods of sampling (M1–M6) on the ADC map. M1 included as much as possible of the lesion on a maximum of five consecutive slices; M2 included five central and five peripheral ROIs; M3 included a single ROI on the solid part of the lesion; M4 included three central ROIs on one slice; M5 included three central ROIs on different slices; and M6 included one large ROI on the entire lesion. A total of 201 animals of various breeds, genders, and ages were analyzed. ADC values differed significantly between M5 against M2 (peripheral) (p < 0.001), M5 against M6 (p = 0.009), and M4 against M2 (peripheral) (p = 0.005). When lesions scored as homogeneous in all sequences were excluded, an additional significant difference in three further sampling methods was present (p < 0.005). ADC of single, large, intracranial space-occupying lesions differed significantly in half of the tested methods of sampling. Excluding homogeneous lesions, additional significant differences among the sampling methods were present. The obtained results should increase awareness of the variability of the ADC, depending on the sample strategies used.