We have located links that may give you full text access.
Standardized Approach for ROI-Based Measurements of Proton Density Fat Fraction and R2* in the Liver.
AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 2017 September
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reproducibility (interreviewer agreement) and repeatability (intrareviewer agreement) of ROI sampling strategies to measure chemical shift-encoded (CSE) MRI-based liver proton density fat fraction (PDFF) and R2* (1 / T2*). A secondary purpose was to standardize ROI-based liver PDFF and R2* measurements by providing a compromise between measurement reproducibility and repeatability and time burden for image analysts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CSE data from two cohorts were retrospectively analyzed. Cohort A included 53 patients referred for abdominal MRI and healthy subjects recruited for a comparison study of CT and MRI. Cohort B included 37 patients with suspected liver iron overload. Three reviewers measured liver PDFF and R2* using previously reported ROI sampling strategies. Inter- and intrareviewer agreement of liver PDFF and R2* were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: Averaging largest-fit ROIs over the nine Couinaud segments resulted in the narrowest limits of agreement (LOA) for liver PDFF and R2* measurements in both cohorts. For PDFF, interreviewer agreement had mean LOA of ± 0.8% for cohort A and ± 1.7% for cohort B. Intrareviewer agreement was ± 0.5% for cohort A and ± 0.9% for cohort B. For R2* interre-viewer agreement had mean LOA of ± 3.0 s-1 for cohort A and ± 17.9 s-1 for cohort B. Intrare-viewer agreement was ± 2.6 s-1 for cohort A and ± 14.6 s-1 for cohort B. This approach was the most time-burdensome, requiring a mean ± SD of 149.7 ± 8.6 s per dataset.
CONCLUSION: For improved reproducibility and repeatability of liver PDFF and R2* measurements, clinicians and researchers should sample as much area of the liver as possible using multiple large ROIs.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: CSE data from two cohorts were retrospectively analyzed. Cohort A included 53 patients referred for abdominal MRI and healthy subjects recruited for a comparison study of CT and MRI. Cohort B included 37 patients with suspected liver iron overload. Three reviewers measured liver PDFF and R2* using previously reported ROI sampling strategies. Inter- and intrareviewer agreement of liver PDFF and R2* were evaluated using Bland-Altman analysis.
RESULTS: Averaging largest-fit ROIs over the nine Couinaud segments resulted in the narrowest limits of agreement (LOA) for liver PDFF and R2* measurements in both cohorts. For PDFF, interreviewer agreement had mean LOA of ± 0.8% for cohort A and ± 1.7% for cohort B. Intrareviewer agreement was ± 0.5% for cohort A and ± 0.9% for cohort B. For R2* interre-viewer agreement had mean LOA of ± 3.0 s-1 for cohort A and ± 17.9 s-1 for cohort B. Intrare-viewer agreement was ± 2.6 s-1 for cohort A and ± 14.6 s-1 for cohort B. This approach was the most time-burdensome, requiring a mean ± SD of 149.7 ± 8.6 s per dataset.
CONCLUSION: For improved reproducibility and repeatability of liver PDFF and R2* measurements, clinicians and researchers should sample as much area of the liver as possible using multiple large ROIs.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app