PURPOSE: To evaluate the platform and reader reproducibility of quantitative carotid plaque measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 individuals with >or=15% carotid stenosis by duplex ultrasound were each imaged once by a 1.5T General Electric (GE) whole body scanner and twice by either a 1.5T Philips scanner or a 1.5T Siemens scanner. A standardized multisequence protocol and identical phased-array carotid coils were used. Expert readers, blinded to subject information, scanner type, and time point, measured the lumen, wall, and total vessel areas and determined the modified American Heart Association lesion type (AHA-LT) on the cross-sectional images. RESULTS: AHA-LT was consistently identified across the same (kappa = 0.75) and different scan platforms (kappa = 0.75). Furthermore, scan-rescan coefficients of variation (CV) of wall area measurements on Siemens and Philips scanners ranged from 6.3% to 7.5%. However, wall area measurements differed between Philips and GE (P = 0.003) and between Siemens and GE (P = 0.05). In general, intrareader reproducibility was higher than interreader reproducibility for AHA-LT identification as well as for quantitative measurements. CONCLUSION: All three scanners produced images that allowed AHA-LT to be consistently identified. Reproducibility of quantitative measurements by Siemens and Philips scanners were comparable to previous studies using 1.5T GE scanners. However, bias was introduced with each scanner and the use of different readers substantially increased variability. We therefore recommend using the same platform and the same reader for scans of individual subjects undergoing serial assessment of carotid atherosclerosis. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the platform and reader reproducibility of quantitative carotid plaque measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 individuals with >or=15% carotid stenosis by duplex ultrasound were each imaged once by a 1.5T General Electric (GE) whole body scanner and twice by either a 1.5T Philips scanner or a 1.5T Siemens scanner. A standardized multisequence protocol and identical phased-array carotid coils were used. Expert readers, blinded to subject information, scanner type, and time point, measured the lumen, wall, and total vessel areas and determined the modified American Heart Association lesion type (AHA-LT) on the cross-sectional images. RESULTS: AHA-LT was consistently identified across the same (kappa = 0.75) and different scan platforms (kappa = 0.75). Furthermore, scan-rescan coefficients of variation (CV) of wall area measurements on Siemens and Philips scanners ranged from 6.3% to 7.5%. However, wall area measurements differed between Philips and GE (P = 0.003) and between Siemens and GE (P = 0.05). In general, intrareader reproducibility was higher than interreader reproducibility for AHA-LT identification as well as for quantitative measurements. CONCLUSION: All three scanners produced images that allowed AHA-LT to be consistently identified. Reproducibility of quantitative measurements by Siemens and Philips scanners were comparable to previous studies using 1.5T GE scanners. However, bias was introduced with each scanner and the use of different readers substantially increased variability. We therefore recommend using the same platform and the same reader for scans of individual subjects undergoing serial assessment of carotid atherosclerosis. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Li Dong; Williams S Kerwin; Huijun Chen; Baocheng Chu; Hunter R Underhill; Moni Blazej Neradilek; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan; Xue-Qiao Zhao Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-04-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dongxiang Xu; Daniel S Hippe; Hunter R Underhill; Minako Oikawa-Wakayama; Li Dong; Kiyofumi Yamada; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Imaging Date: 2014-03-13
Authors: H R Underhill; C Yuan; V L Yarnykh; B Chu; M Oikawa; L Dong; N L Polissar; G A Garden; S C Cramer; T S Hatsukami Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Venkatesh Mani; Paul Muntner; Samuel S Gidding; Silvia H Aguiar; Hamza El Aidi; Karen B Weinshelbaum; Hiroaki Taniguchi; Rob van der Geest; Johan H C Reiber; Sameer Bansilal; Michael Farkouh; Valentin Fuster; John E Postley; Mark Woodward; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Tobias Saam; Jose G Raya; Clemens C Cyran; Katja Bochmann; Georgios Meimarakis; Olaf Dietrich; Dirk A Clevert; Ute Frey; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami; Abe Werf; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Li Dong; William S Kerwin; Marina S Ferguson; Rui Li; Jinnan Wang; Huijun Chen; Gador Canton; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-12-15 Impact factor: 5.364