Paola Clauser1,2, Magda Marcon2,3, Marta Maieron4, Chiara Zuiani2, Massimo Bazzocchi2, Pascal A T Baltzer5. 1. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Institute of Diagnostic Radiology, Department of Medical and Biological Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy. 3. Department of Radiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. SOC Fisica Sanitaria, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria, S.Maria della Misericordia, Udine, Italy. 5. Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Medical University of Vienna/General Hospital Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, 1090, Vienna, Austria. pascal.baltzer@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions. METHODS: Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland-Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %. CONCLUSION: Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation. KEY POINTS: • ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used. • ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable. • Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems. • Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions. METHODS: Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS: Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland-Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %. CONCLUSION: Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation. KEY POINTS: • ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used. • ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable. • Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems. • Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Christiane D Mullins; Brenda F Kurland; Michael D Allain; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Geerard L Beets; Monique Maas; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Alfons G H Kessels; Thomas Thywissen; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker; Stephan Polanec; Heinrich Magometschnigg; Georg Wengert; Claudio Spick; Wolfgang Bogner; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Paola Clauser; Barbara Krug; Hubert Bickel; Matthias Dietzel; Katja Pinker; Victor-Frederic Neuhaus; Maria Adele Marino; Marco Moschetta; Nicoletta Troiano; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal A T Baltzer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David C Newitt; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; C Chad Quarles; Laura Bell; Andriy Fedorov; Fiona Fennessy; Michael A Jacobs; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Stefanie Hectors; Bachir Taouli; Mark Muzi; Paul E Kinahan; Kathleen M Schmainda; Melissa A Prah; Erin N Taber; Christopher Kroenke; Wei Huang; Lori R Arlinghaus; Thomas E Yankeelov; Yue Cao; Madhava Aryal; Yi-Fen Yen; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Amita Shukla-Dave; Maggie Fung; Jiachao Liang; Michael Boss; Nola Hylton Journal: J Med Imaging (Bellingham) Date: 2017-10-10
Authors: Martin Georg Zeilinger; Michael Lell; Pascal Andreas Thomas Baltzer; Arnd Dörfler; Michael Uder; Matthias Dietzel Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: David C Newitt; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Savannah C Partridge; Helga S Marques; Benjamin A Herman; Brian D Ross; Nola M Hylton; Thomas L Chenevert; Dariya I Malyarenko Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-06