PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows for quantitative evaluation of pulmonary perfusion and has shown high clinical usefulness for the evaluation and differentiation of different lung pathologies. The reproducibility of quantitative analysis of whole-lung perfusion has not been investigated previously. Our aim was to assess the intraobserver and interobserver repeatability and reproducibility of perfusion MRI to prove the concept that perfusion is suitable for therapy monitoring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the International Review Board. Fourteen healthy volunteers were examined using a time-resolved FLASH 3-dimensional perfusion sequence (1.5-T MRI, TREAT, GRAPPA 2, coronal orientation, voxel size 3.9×3.9×6.3 mm(3)). Perfusion was assessed initially and after 24 hours during an inspiratory and an expiratory breath hold. For each examination, 0.05 mmol/kg BW of Gd-DTPA was injected. Perfusion parameters such as pulmonary blood flow (PBF), pulmonary blood volume, and mean transit time were calculated. The evaluation was performed independently by 2 blinded observers. Intraobserver and interobserver differences were determined. RESULTS: The intraobserver differences between the initial and follow-up examinations for pulmonary blood volume, mean transit time, and time to peak were not significantly different for observers 1 and 2. PBF showed a significant difference for both observers only on inspiration (P<0.006 for observer 1 and P<0.009 for observer 2). For interobserver evaluation, all parameters, except inspiratory PBF, were significantly different (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Intraobserver quantitative perfusion MRI showed reproducible results. However, the evaluation is highly dependent on the observer. Therefore, quantitative analysis of the serial examinations should be performed by the same observer.
PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) allows for quantitative evaluation of pulmonary perfusion and has shown high clinical usefulness for the evaluation and differentiation of different lung pathologies. The reproducibility of quantitative analysis of whole-lung perfusion has not been investigated previously. Our aim was to assess the intraobserver and interobserver repeatability and reproducibility of perfusion MRI to prove the concept that perfusion is suitable for therapy monitoring. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the International Review Board. Fourteen healthy volunteers were examined using a time-resolved FLASH 3-dimensional perfusion sequence (1.5-T MRI, TREAT, GRAPPA 2, coronal orientation, voxel size 3.9×3.9×6.3 mm(3)). Perfusion was assessed initially and after 24 hours during an inspiratory and an expiratory breath hold. For each examination, 0.05 mmol/kg BW of Gd-DTPA was injected. Perfusion parameters such as pulmonary blood flow (PBF), pulmonary blood volume, and mean transit time were calculated. The evaluation was performed independently by 2 blinded observers. Intraobserver and interobserver differences were determined. RESULTS: The intraobserver differences between the initial and follow-up examinations for pulmonary blood volume, mean transit time, and time to peak were not significantly different for observers 1 and 2. PBF showed a significant difference for both observers only on inspiration (P<0.006 for observer 1 and P<0.009 for observer 2). For interobserver evaluation, all parameters, except inspiratory PBF, were significantly different (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Intraobserver quantitative perfusion MRI showed reproducible results. However, the evaluation is highly dependent on the observer. Therefore, quantitative analysis of the serial examinations should be performed by the same observer.
Authors: M Weis; V Sommer; F G Zöllner; C Hagelstein; K Zahn; T Schaible; S O Schoenberg; K W Neff Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-04-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Laura C Bell; Kang Wang; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Thomas M Grist; Sean B Fain; Scott K Nagle Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Alvard Ter-Karapetyan; Simon M F Triphan; Bertram J Jobst; Angela F Anjorin; Julia Ley-Zaporozhan; Sebastian Ley; Oliver Sedlaczek; Jürgen Biederer; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Peter M Jakob; Mark O Wielpütz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-12-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Marilisa Schiwek; Simon M F Triphan; Jürgen Biederer; Oliver Weinheimer; Monika Eichinger; Claus F Vogelmeier; Rudolf A Jörres; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Claus P Heußel; Philip Konietzke; Oyunbileg von Stackelberg; Frank Risse; Bertram J Jobst; Mark O Wielpütz Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Joseph Cheriyan; Alexandra Roberts; Caleb Roberts; Martin J Graves; Ilse Patterson; Rhys A Slough; Rosemary Schroyer; Disala Fernando; Subramanya Kumar; Sarah Lee; Geoffrey J M Parker; Lea Sarov-Blat; Carmel McEniery; Jessica Middlemiss; Dennis Sprecher; Robert L Janiczek Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-03-27 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Jimmy Z Yu; Tobias Granberg; Roya Shams; Sven Petersson; Magnus Sköld; Sven Nyrén; Johan Lundberg Journal: J Intern Med Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 13.068