OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements made with a PACS workstation compared with measurements made with a dedicated workstation, which is currently considered the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in liver lesions from 79 patients using three MRI platforms. The final diagnosis was established by liver biopsy in 31 patients and by dynamic MRI and follow-up, both clinical and radiologic as indicated, in 48 patients. Each lesion that was clearly demonstrable on the ADC map was measured with a commercial dedicated postprocessing workstation and again with a PACS system. A two-sample t test was used to determine the statistically significant differences between the two ADC measurements. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients with 120 liver lesions were included. ADC values measured on the workstation were 0.4-4.38 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The ADC values measured on the PACS were 0.42-4.35 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The T value was -1.113, with 119 degrees of freedom, and the significance level was 0.268, which implies no significant difference between the two different measuring systems for all pathologic abnormalities and MRI scanners used. CONCLUSION: ADC values measured on a routine PACS workstation are as accurate as the values obtained on a dedicated specialized workstation. ADC value measurement on the routine PACS will save time and lead to increased utilization, which, in turn, will lead to an improved understanding of the different disease processes and their clinical management.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements made with a PACS workstation compared with measurements made with a dedicated workstation, which is currently considered the reference standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed in liver lesions from 79 patients using three MRI platforms. The final diagnosis was established by liver biopsy in 31 patients and by dynamic MRI and follow-up, both clinical and radiologic as indicated, in 48 patients. Each lesion that was clearly demonstrable on the ADC map was measured with a commercial dedicated postprocessing workstation and again with a PACS system. A two-sample t test was used to determine the statistically significant differences between the two ADC measurements. RESULTS: A total of 79 patients with 120 liver lesions were included. ADC values measured on the workstation were 0.4-4.38 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The ADC values measured on the PACS were 0.42-4.35 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s. The T value was -1.113, with 119 degrees of freedom, and the significance level was 0.268, which implies no significant difference between the two different measuring systems for all pathologic abnormalities and MRI scanners used. CONCLUSION: ADC values measured on a routine PACS workstation are as accurate as the values obtained on a dedicated specialized workstation. ADC value measurement on the routine PACS will save time and lead to increased utilization, which, in turn, will lead to an improved understanding of the different disease processes and their clinical management.
Authors: Sarah B Mulkey; Christopher J Swearingen; Maria S Melguizo; Michael L Schmitz; Xiawei Ou; Raghu H Ramakrishnaiah; Charles M Glasier; G Bradley Schaefer; Adnan T Bhutta Journal: Pediatr Cardiol Date: 2013-05-08 Impact factor: 1.655
Authors: Marc C Mabray; Benjamin A Cohen; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Francisco E Valles; Ramon F Barajas; James L Rubenstein; Soonmee Cha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jie Zhu; Jie Zhang; Jia-Yin Gao; Jin-Ning Li; Da-Wei Yang; Min Chen; Cheng Zhou; Zheng-Han Yang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.889
Authors: Lisa Maria Walchhofer; Ruth Steiger; Andreas Rietzler; Johannes Kerschbaumer; Christian Franz Freyschlag; Günther Stockhammer; Elke Ruth Gizewski; Astrid Ellen Grams Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 6.639