Literature DB >> 24471390

Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of upper abdominal organs: field strength and intervendor variability of apparent diffusion coefficients.

Olivio F Donati1, Daniel Chong, Daniel Nanz, Andreas Boss, Johannes M Froehlich, Erik Andres, Burkhardt Seifert, Harriet C Thoeny.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in various anatomic regions in the upper abdomen measured with magnetic resonance (MR) systems from different vendors and with different field strengths.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten healthy men (mean age, 36.6 years ± 7.7 [standard deviation]) gave written informed consent to participate in this prospective ethics committee-approved study. Diffusion-weighted (DW) MR imaging was performed in each subject with 1.5- and 3.0-T MR systems from each of three vendors at two institutions. Two readers independently measured ADC values in seven upper abdominal regions (left and right liver lobe, gallbladder, pancreas, spleen, and renal cortex and medulla). ADC values were tested for interobserver differences, as well as for differences related to field strength and vendor, with repeated-measures analysis of variance; coefficients of variation (CVs) and variance components were calculated.
RESULTS: Interreader agreement was excellent (intraclass coefficient, 0.876). ADC values were (77.5-88.8) ×10(-5) mm(2)/sec in the spleen and (250.6-278.5) ×10(-5) mm(2)/sec in the gallbladder. There were no significant differences between ADC values measured at 1.5 T and those measured at 3.0 T in any anatomic region (P >.10 for all). In two of seven regions at 1.5 T (left and right liver lobes, P < .023) and in four of seven regions at 3.0 T (left liver lobe, pancreas, and renal cortex and medulla, P < .008), intervendor differences were significant. CVs ranged from 7.0% to 27.1% depending on the anatomic location.
CONCLUSION: Despite significant intervendor differences in ADC values of various anatomic regions of the upper abdomen, ADC values of the gallbladder, pancreas, spleen, and kidney may be comparable between MR systems from different vendors and between different field strengths. © RSNA, 2013

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24471390     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130819

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  47 in total

1.  Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study.

Authors:  Paola Clauser; Magda Marcon; Marta Maieron; Chiara Zuiani; Massimo Bazzocchi; Pascal A T Baltzer
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Diagnostic performance of ADCs in different ROIs for breast lesions.

Authors:  Wei Zhang; Guan-Qiao Jin; Jun-Jie Liu; Dan-Ke Su; Ning-Bin Luo; Dong Xie; Shao-Lv Lai; Xiang-Yang Huang; Wei-Li Huang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-08-15

Review 3.  Functional MRI and CT biomarkers in oncology.

Authors:  J M Winfield; G S Payne; N M deSouza
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 9.236

4.  Development of a diffusion-weighted MRI protocol for multicentre abdominal imaging and evaluation of the effects of fasting on measurement of apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) in healthy liver.

Authors:  J M Winfield; M-V Papoutsaki; H Ragheb; D M Morris; A Heerschap; E G W ter Voert; J P A Kuijer; I C Pieters; N H M Douglas; M Orton; N M de Souza
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  Relationship of renal apparent diffusion coefficient and functional MR urography in children with pelvicalyceal dilation.

Authors:  Maria A Bedoya; Jeffrey I Berman; Jorge Delgado; Dmitry Khrichenko; Christian A Barrera; Robert H Carson; Kassa Darge
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-04-19

6.  Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study.

Authors:  Nicolas F Michoux; Jakub W Ceranka; Jef Vandemeulebroucke; Frank Peeters; Pierre Lu; Julie Absil; Perrine Triqueneaux; Yan Liu; Laurence Collette; Inneke Willekens; Carola Brussaard; Olivier Debeir; Stephan Hahn; Hubert Raeymaekers; Johan de Mey; Thierry Metens; Frédéric E Lecouvet
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  Variability in quantitative diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) across different scanners and imaging sites: is there a potential consensus that can help reducing the limits of expected bias?

Authors:  Frederic Carsten Schmeel
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2018-11-28       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 8.  Diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver: challenges and some solutions for the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion.

Authors:  Yi Xiang J Wang; Hua Huang; Cun-Jing Zheng; Ben-Heng Xiao; Olivier Chevallier; Wei Wang
Journal:  Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2021-04-15

Review 9.  Functional MR Imaging Techniques in Oncology in the Era of Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Matthias R Benz; Hebert Alberto Vargas; Evis Sala
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2015-09-26       Impact factor: 2.266

10.  Prospective comparison of magnetic resonance imaging to transient elastography and serum markers for liver fibrosis detection.

Authors:  Hadrien A Dyvorne; Guido H Jajamovich; Octavia Bane; M Isabel Fiel; Hsin Chou; Thomas D Schiano; Douglas Dieterich; James S Babb; Scott L Friedman; Bachir Taouli
Journal:  Liver Int       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 5.828

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.