PURPOSE: This study evaluated intraobserver and interobserver variability in the measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in breast carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with solid breast lesions >10 mm underwent conventional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI). Two observers (expert and trainee) segmented the lesion from the surrounding breast tissue on DW images with high b-value (1,000 s/mm(2)). This analysis was repeated by the expert reader after 6 months. Volumes were analysed to obtain mean, median and standard deviation (SD) of the ADC values. Interobserver and intraobserver variation was analysed using the Bland-Altman graph. RESULTS: All lesions were breast carcinomas, with a mean ADC value of 1.07 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The mean of the differences was 0.012 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, corresponding to an intraobserver variability of 1.1% (limits of agreement: -5%/+8%). The mean interobserver difference was 0.022 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, corresponding to an interobserver variability of 2% (limits of agreement: -9%/+14%). CONCLUSIONS: We found a low intraobserver and interobserver variability in calculating ADC in breast carcinomas, which supports its potential use in routine clinical practice.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated intraobserver and interobserver variability in the measurement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in breast carcinomas. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight patients with solid breast lesions >10 mm underwent conventional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI). Two observers (expert and trainee) segmented the lesion from the surrounding breast tissue on DW images with high b-value (1,000 s/mm(2)). This analysis was repeated by the expert reader after 6 months. Volumes were analysed to obtain mean, median and standard deviation (SD) of the ADC values. Interobserver and intraobserver variation was analysed using the Bland-Altman graph. RESULTS: All lesions were breast carcinomas, with a mean ADC value of 1.07 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The mean of the differences was 0.012 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, corresponding to an intraobserver variability of 1.1% (limits of agreement: -5%/+8%). The mean interobserver difference was 0.022 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s, corresponding to an interobserver variability of 2% (limits of agreement: -9%/+14%). CONCLUSIONS: We found a low intraobserver and interobserver variability in calculating ADC in breast carcinomas, which supports its potential use in routine clinical practice.
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: F Sardanelli; G M Giuseppetti; G Canavese; L Cataliotti; S Corcione; E Cossu; M Federico; L Marotti; L Martincich; P Panizza; F Podo; M Rosselli Del Turco; C Zuiani; C Alfano; M Bazzocchi; P Belli; S Bianchi; A Cilotti; M Calabrese; L Carbonaro; L Cortesi; C Di Maggio; A Del Maschio; A Esseridou; A Fausto; M Gennaro; R Girometti; R Ienzi; A Luini; S Manoukian; S Morassutt; D Morrone; J Nori; A Orlacchio; F Pane; P Panzarola; R Ponzone; G Simonetti; P Torricelli; G Valeri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-10-16 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Lorenzo Preda; Giorgio Conte; Luke Bonello; Caterina Giannitto; Laura L Travaini; Sara Raimondi; Paul E Summers; Ansarin Mohssen; Daniela Alterio; Maria Cossu Rocca; Chiara Grana; Francesca Ruju; Massimo Bellomi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-03-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Natalia V Oster; Patricia A Carney; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver; Lisa M Reisch; Gary Longton; Tracy Onega; Margaret Pepe; Berta M Geller; Heidi D Nelson; Tyler R Ross; Aanna N A Tosteson; Joann G Elmore Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2013-02-05 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: David C Newitt; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Savannah C Partridge; Helga S Marques; Benjamin A Herman; Brian D Ross; Nola M Hylton; Thomas L Chenevert; Dariya I Malyarenko Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-06