Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study

Objectives Multicenter oncology trials increasingly include MRI examinations with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for lesion characterization and follow-up. However, the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) limits above which a true change in ADC can be considered relevant...

Celý popis

Uloženo v:
Podrobná bibliografie
Vydáno v:European radiology Ročník 31; číslo 7; s. 4514 - 4527
Hlavní autoři: Michoux, Nicolas F., Ceranka, Jakub W., Vandemeulebroucke, Jef, Peeters, Frank, Lu, Pierre, Absil, Julie, Triqueneaux, Perrine, Liu, Yan, Collette, Laurence, Willekens, Inneke, Brussaard, Carola, Debeir, Olivier, Hahn, Stephan, Raeymaekers, Hubert, de Mey, Johan, Metens, Thierry, Lecouvet, Frédéric E.
Médium: Journal Article
Jazyk:angličtina
Vydáno: Berlin/Heidelberg Springer Berlin Heidelberg 01.07.2021
Springer Nature B.V
Témata:
Acetabulum
Cerebrum
Clinical trials
Coefficient of variation
Confidence intervals
Diagnostic Radiology
Diffusion coefficient
Diffusion rate
Femur
Iliac crest
Image acquisition
Imaging
Internal Medicine
Interventional Radiology
Liver
Magnetic Resonance
Magnetic resonance imaging
Medical treatment
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Muscles
Neuroimaging
Neuroradiology
Organs
Prostate
Radiology
Renal cortex
Reproducibility
Scanners
Spine
Spleen
Substantia alba
Ultrasound
Variance analysis
Vertebrae
Reproducibility of results
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging
Whole-body imaging
Disease progression
Cancer
ISSN:0938-7994, 1432-1084, 1432-1084
On-line přístup:Získat plný text
Tagy: Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
Popis
Shrnutí:Objectives Multicenter oncology trials increasingly include MRI examinations with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for lesion characterization and follow-up. However, the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) limits above which a true change in ADC can be considered relevant are poorly defined. This study assessed these limits in a standardized whole-body (WB)-MRI protocol. Methods A prospective, multicenter study was performed at three centers equipped with the same 3.0-T scanners to test a WB-MRI protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Eight healthy volunteers per center were enrolled to undergo test and retest examinations in the same center and a third examination in another center. ADC variability was assessed in multiple organs by two readers using two-way mixed ANOVA, Bland-Altman plots, coefficient of variation (CoV), and the upper limit of the 95% CI on repeatability (RC) and reproducibility (RDC) coefficients. Results CoV of ADC was not influenced by other factors (center, reader) than the organ. Based on the upper limit of the 95% CI on RC and RDC (from both readers), a change in ADC in an individual patient must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central and peripheral zones of the prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be significant. Conclusions This study proposes R&R limits above which ADC changes can be considered as a reliable quantitative endpoint to assess disease or treatment-related changes in the tissue microstructure in the setting of multicenter WB-MRI trials. Key Points • The present study showed the range of R&R of ADC in WB-MRI that may be achieved in a multicenter framework when a standardized protocol is deployed. • R&R was not influenced by the site of acquisition of DW images. • Clinically significant changes in ADC measured in a multicenter WB-MRI protocol performed with the same type of MRI scanner must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central zone and peripheral zone of prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be detected with a 95% confidence level.
Bibliografie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
content type line 23
ISSN:0938-7994
1432-1084
1432-1084
DOI:10.1007/s00330-020-07522-0