PURPOSE: To compare the inter- and intraobserver variability with manual region of interest (ROI) placement versus that with software-assisted semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis with respect to quantitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging determinations of the volume transfer constant (K(trans)). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Fifteen DCE MR imaging studies of the female pelvis defined the study group. Uterine fibroids were used as a perfusion model. Three varying types of lesion measurements were performed by five readers on each study by using DCE MR imaging perfusion analysis software with manual ROI placement and a semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis solution. Intra- and interreader variability of measurements of K(trans) with the different measurement types was calculated. RESULTS: The overall interobserver variability of K(trans) with manual ROI placement (mean, 28.5% ± 9.3) was reduced by 42.5% when the semiautomatic, software-assisted lesion measurement method was used (16.4% ± 6.2). Whole-lesion measurement showed the lowest interobserver variability with both measurement methods (20.1% ± 4.3 with the manual method vs 10.8% ± 2.6 with the semiautomatic method). The overall intrareader variability with the manual ROI method (7.6% ± 10.6) was not significantly different from that with the semiautomatic method (7.3% ± 10.8), but the intraclass correlation coefficient for intrareader reproducibility improved from 0.86 overall with the manual method to 0.99 with the semiautomatic method. CONCLUSION: A semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis approach can provide a significant reduction in interobserver variability for DCE MR imaging measurements of K(trans) when compared with manual ROI methods, whereas intraobserver reproducibility is improved to some extent.
PURPOSE: To compare the inter- and intraobserver variability with manual region of interest (ROI) placement versus that with software-assisted semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis with respect to quantitative dynamic contrast material-enhanced (DCE) MR imaging determinations of the volume transfer constant (K(trans)). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the institutional review board and compliant with HIPAA. The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived. Fifteen DCE MR imaging studies of the female pelvis defined the study group. Uterine fibroids were used as a perfusion model. Three varying types of lesion measurements were performed by five readers on each study by using DCE MR imaging perfusion analysis software with manual ROI placement and a semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis solution. Intra- and interreader variability of measurements of K(trans) with the different measurement types was calculated. RESULTS: The overall interobserver variability of K(trans) with manual ROI placement (mean, 28.5% ± 9.3) was reduced by 42.5% when the semiautomatic, software-assisted lesion measurement method was used (16.4% ± 6.2). Whole-lesion measurement showed the lowest interobserver variability with both measurement methods (20.1% ± 4.3 with the manual method vs 10.8% ± 2.6 with the semiautomatic method). The overall intrareader variability with the manual ROI method (7.6% ± 10.6) was not significantly different from that with the semiautomatic method (7.3% ± 10.8), but the intraclass correlation coefficient for intrareader reproducibility improved from 0.86 overall with the manual method to 0.99 with the semiautomatic method. CONCLUSION: A semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis approach can provide a significant reduction in interobserver variability for DCE MR imaging measurements of K(trans) when compared with manual ROI methods, whereas intraobserver reproducibility is improved to some extent.
Authors: Julius Chapiro; Rafael Duran; MingDe Lin; John D Werner; Zhijun Wang; Rüdiger Schernthaner; Lynn Jeanette Savic; Mark L Lessne; Jean-François Geschwind; Kelvin Hong Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Soudabeh Kargar; Eric A Borisch; Adam T Froemming; Akira Kawashima; Lance A Mynderse; Eric G Stinson; Joshua D Trzasko; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-12-24 Impact factor: 2.546
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: L M Colon-Perez; W Triplett; A Bohsali; M Corti; P T Nguyen; C Patten; T H Mareci; C C Price Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.978