BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data available regarding the repeatability and reproducibility of superficial shear wave speed (SWS) measurements at imaging depths relevant to the pediatric population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of superficial shear wave speed measurements acquired from elasticity phantoms at varying imaging depths using three imaging methods, two US systems and multiple operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Soft and hard elasticity phantoms manufactured by Computerized Imaging Reference Systems Inc. (Norfolk, VA) were utilized for our investigation. Institution No. 1 used an Acuson S3000 US system (Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Malvern, PA) and three shear wave imaging method/transducer combinations, while institution No. 2 used an Aixplorer US system (SuperSonic Imagine, Bothell, WA) and two different transducers. Ten stiffness measurements were acquired from each phantom at three depths (1.0 cm, 2.5 cm and 4.0 cm) by four operators at each institution. Student's t-test was used to compare SWS measurements between imaging techniques, while SWS measurement agreement was assessed with two-way random effects single-measure intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficients of variation. Mixed model regression analysis determined the effect of predictor variables on SWS measurements. RESULTS: For the soft phantom, the average of mean SWS measurements across the various imaging methods and depths was 0.84 ± 0.04 m/s (mean ± standard deviation) for the Acuson S3000 system and 0.90 ± 0.02 m/s for the Aixplorer system (P = 0.003). For the hard phantom, the average of mean SWS measurements across the various imaging methods and depths was 2.14 ± 0.08 m/s for the Acuson S3000 system and 2.07 ± 0.03 m/s Aixplorer system (P > 0.05). The coefficients of variation were low (0.5-6.8%), and interoperator agreement was near-perfect (ICCs ≥ 0.99). Shear wave imaging method and imaging depth significantly affected measured SWS (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Superficial shear wave speed measurements in elasticity phantoms demonstrate minimal variability across imaging method/transducer combinations, imaging depths and operators. The exact clinical significance of this variation is uncertain and may change according to organ and specific disease state.
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data available regarding the repeatability and reproducibility of superficial shear wave speed (SWS) measurements at imaging depths relevant to the pediatric population. OBJECTIVE: To assess the repeatability and reproducibility of superficial shear wave speed measurements acquired from elasticity phantoms at varying imaging depths using three imaging methods, two US systems and multiple operators. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Soft and hard elasticity phantoms manufactured by Computerized Imaging Reference Systems Inc. (Norfolk, VA) were utilized for our investigation. Institution No. 1 used an Acuson S3000 US system (Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Malvern, PA) and three shear wave imaging method/transducer combinations, while institution No. 2 used an Aixplorer US system (SuperSonic Imagine, Bothell, WA) and two different transducers. Ten stiffness measurements were acquired from each phantom at three depths (1.0 cm, 2.5 cm and 4.0 cm) by four operators at each institution. Student's t-test was used to compare SWS measurements between imaging techniques, while SWS measurement agreement was assessed with two-way random effects single-measure intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) and coefficients of variation. Mixed model regression analysis determined the effect of predictor variables on SWS measurements. RESULTS: For the soft phantom, the average of mean SWS measurements across the various imaging methods and depths was 0.84 ± 0.04 m/s (mean ± standard deviation) for the Acuson S3000 system and 0.90 ± 0.02 m/s for the Aixplorer system (P = 0.003). For the hard phantom, the average of mean SWS measurements across the various imaging methods and depths was 2.14 ± 0.08 m/s for the Acuson S3000 system and 2.07 ± 0.03 m/s Aixplorer system (P > 0.05). The coefficients of variation were low (0.5-6.8%), and interoperator agreement was near-perfect (ICCs ≥ 0.99). Shear wave imaging method and imaging depth significantly affected measured SWS (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Superficial shear wave speed measurements in elasticity phantoms demonstrate minimal variability across imaging method/transducer combinations, imaging depths and operators. The exact clinical significance of this variation is uncertain and may change according to organ and specific disease state.
Authors: Armen Sarvazyan; Timothy J Hall; Matthew W Urban; Mostafa Fatemi; Salavat R Aglyamov; Brian S Garra Journal: Curr Med Imaging Rev Date: 2011-11
Authors: Mickael Tanter; Jeremy Bercoff; Alexandra Athanasiou; Thomas Deffieux; Jean-Luc Gennisson; Gabriel Montaldo; Marie Muller; Anne Tardivon; Mathias Fink Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2008-04-08 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: B Frankewycz; A Penz; J Weber; N P da Silva; F Freimoser; R Bell; M Nerlich; E M Jung; D Docheva; C G Pfeifer Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-11-16 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Andrea B Rosskopf; Elias Bachmann; Jess G Snedeker; Christian W A Pfirrmann; Florian M Buck Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2016-09-08 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Jonathan R Dillman; Amer Heider; Jacob L Bilhartz; Ethan A Smith; Nahid Keshavarzi; Jonathan M Rubin; M James Lopez Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2015-04-08
Authors: Mark L Palmeri; Bo Qiang; Shigao Chen; Matthew W Urban Journal: IEEE Trans Ultrason Ferroelectr Freq Control Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Frank W DiPaola; Kurt R Schumacher; Caren S Goldberg; Joshua Friedland-Little; Aishwarya Parameswaran; Jonathan R Dillman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-10-17 Impact factor: 5.315