Literature DB >> 23321832

Agreement and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements of dual-b-value and multi-b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla in phantom and in soft tissues of the abdomen.

Celia Pamela Corona-Villalobos1, Li Pan, Vivek Gowdra Halappa, Susanne Bonekamp, Christine H Lorenz, John Eng, Ihab R Kamel.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the coefficient of variation (CV) and long-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a simple fluid-filled phantom and abdominal organs simultaneously.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective institutional review board-approved and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study sequentially selected 100 patients who underwent clinically indicated abdominal magnetic resonance imaging. A subset of 58 patients had repeat scans within 2 to 5 months after the initial magnetic resonance imaging. Two diffusion-weighted imaging techniques (b-values 0-750 mm/s) were performed to compare the ADC values. Mean ADC values were calculated for 10 locations and the reference phantom. The CV and Bland-Altman plots were calculated for the phantom and soft tissues at each session and location.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the mean ADC values between repeated acquisitions. However, ADC values were statistically higher using dual-b-value than multi-b-value diffusion-weighted imaging. The CV for the phantom was 8.6 versus 10.8 for dual-b-value and multi-b-value, respectively. The CVs for the soft tissues had a wider range compared with that of the phantom (liver, 12.6 vs 9.0; spleen, 11.7 vs 11.2; gallbladder, 11.0 vs 13.6; head of pancreas, 14.6 vs 14.7; body of pancreas, 13.4 vs 13.0; tail of pancreas, 14.8 vs 16.3; right kidney, 9.1 vs 9.6; left kidney, 9.3 vs 9.3; right paraspinal muscle, 7.9 vs 7.5; left paraspinal muscle, 7.3 vs 7.3, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: A change in ADC less than 11% falls into the range of measurement variability. Paraspinal muscle could potentially be used as an internal reference parameter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23321832     DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182720e07

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr        ISSN: 0363-8715            Impact factor:   1.826


  14 in total

1.  Accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating pancreatic neuroendocrine tumour from intrapancreatic accessory spleen.

Authors:  Ankur Pandey; Pallavi Pandey; Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh; Farnaz Najmi Varzaneh; Pegah Khoshpouri; Nannan Shao; Manijeh Zargham Pour; Daniel Fadaei Fouladi; Ralph H Hruban; Anne Marie O'Broin-Lennon; Ihab R Kamel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-11-13       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Differentiation of peripheral nerve sheath tumors in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1 using diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Lennart Well; Johannes Salamon; Michael G Kaul; Said Farschtschi; Jochen Herrmann; Karin I Geier; Christian Hagel; Maximilian Bockhorn; Peter Bannas; Gerhard Adam; Victor F Mautner; Thorsten Derlin
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2019-03-18       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 3.  Magnetic resonance evaluations of biliary malignancy and condition at high-risk for biliary malignancy: Current status.

Authors:  Reiji Sugita
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2013-12-27

Review 4.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients, in-vitro and in-vivo reproducibility.

Authors:  Maysam M Jafar; Arman Parsai; Marc E Miquel
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-01-28

Review 5.  Diffusion-weighted imaging outside the brain: Consensus statement from an ISMRM-sponsored workshop.

Authors:  Bachir Taouli; Ambros J Beer; Thomas Chenevert; David Collins; Constance Lehman; Celso Matos; Anwar R Padhani; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Amita Shukla-Dave; Eric Sigmund; Lawrence Tanenbaum; Harriet Thoeny; Isabelle Thomassin-Naggara; Sebastiano Barbieri; Idoia Corcuera-Solano; Matthew Orton; Savannah C Partridge; Dow-Mu Koh
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Apparent diffusion coefficient is highly reproducible on preclinical imaging systems: Evidence from a seven-center multivendor study.

Authors:  Sabrina Doblas; Gilberto S Almeida; François-Xavier Blé; Philippe Garteiser; Benjamin A Hoff; Dominick J O McIntyre; Lydia Wachsmuth; Thomas L Chenevert; Cornelius Faber; John R Griffiths; Andreas H Jacobs; David M Morris; James P B O'Connor; Simon P Robinson; Bernard E Van Beers; John C Waterton
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 7.  Pitfalls and Limitations of Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Diagnosis of Urinary Bladder Cancer.

Authors:  Wei-Ching Lin; Jeon-Hor Chen
Journal:  Transl Oncol       Date:  2015-06       Impact factor: 4.243

8.  Apparent diffusion coefficient normalization of normal liver: Will it improve the reproducibility of diffusion-weighted imaging at different MR scanners as a new biomarker?

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

9.  Intra-Individual, Inter-Vendor Comparison of Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging of Upper Abdominal Organs at 3.0 Tesla with an Emphasis on the Value of Normalization with the Spleen.

Authors:  Ji Soo Song; Seung Bae Hwang; Gyung Ho Chung; Gong Yong Jin
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2016-03-02       Impact factor: 3.500

10.  A data-driven statistical model that estimates measurement uncertainty improves interpretation of ADC reproducibility: a multi-site study of liver metastases.

Authors:  Ryan Pathak; Hossein Ragheb; Neil A Thacker; David M Morris; Houshang Amiri; Joost Kuijer; Nandita M deSouza; Arend Heerschap; Alan Jackson
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-10-26       Impact factor: 4.379

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.