Literature DB >> 26830611

Inter-observer agreement on the assessment of relative liver lesion signal intensity on hepatobiliary phase imaging with gadoxetate (Gd-EOB-DTPA).

Sharon Ngu1, Lizza Lebron-Zapata1, Christy Pomeranz1,2, Seth Katz1, Scott Gerst1, Junting Zheng3, Chaya Moskowitz3, Richard K G Do4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to assess the inter-observer agreement on the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of relative signal intensity of liver lesions on delayed hepatobiliary phase (HBP) MRI with gadoxetate (Gd-EOB-DTPA).
METHODS: 105 patients with liver lesions, who had delayed HPB MRI using gadoxetate were reviewed retrospectively. For each patient, four readers (two fellows in training and two attending radiologists) qualitatively assessed the relative SI of the largest representative lesion on a five point scale, and quantitatively measured the relative SI of the lesion to adjacent liver parenchyma using region of interests (ROI). Intra-class correlation (ICC) and kappa statistics with quadratic weights (k) analysis, and maximally selected rank statistic were performed.
RESULTS: Substantial agreement between fellows (k = 0.719; ICC = 0.705) and almost perfect agreement between attending radiologists (k = 0.853; ICC = 0.849) were found for both qualitative and quantitative assessments of relative SI on delayed HPB imaging. A cut-off ratio to differentiate between hypointense and iso- to hyperintense lesions by ROI was calculated to be 0.90.
CONCLUSION: Inter-observer agreement of liver lesion relative SI on delayed HBP imaging is high and may improve with radiologist experience. A cut-off ratio of relative SI at 0.90 may be useful to quantitatively distinguish hypointense from iso- to hyperintense liver lesions.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Eovist; Gadoxetic; Interreader agreement; MRI; Primovist

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26830611      PMCID: PMC4740974          DOI: 10.1007/s00261-015-0609-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)


  21 in total

1.  Consensus interpretation in imaging research: is there a better way?

Authors:  Alexander A Bankier; Deborah Levine; Elkan F Halpern; Herbert Y Kressel
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Hepatocellular carcinoma: hepatocyte-selective enhancement at gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging--correlation with expression of sinusoidal and canalicular transporters and bile accumulation.

Authors:  Takahiro Tsuboyama; Hiromitsu Onishi; Tonsok Kim; Hirofumi Akita; Masatoshi Hori; Mitsuaki Tatsumi; Atsushi Nakamoto; Hiroaki Nagano; Nariaki Matsuura; Kenichi Wakasa; Kaname Tomoda
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  Liver tumors: comparison of MR imaging with Gd-EOB-DTPA and Gd-DTPA.

Authors:  T J Vogl; S Kümmel; R Hammerstingl; M Schellenbeck; G Schumacher; T Balzer; W Schwarz; P K Müller; W O Bechstein; M G Mack; O Söllner; R Felix
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Clinical value of MRI liver-specific contrast agents: a tailored examination for a confident non-invasive diagnosis of focal liver lesions.

Authors:  Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah; Martin Uffmann; Sanjai Saini; Nina Bastati; Christian Herold; Wolfgang Schima
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2008-09-23       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree.

Authors:  Melanie K Seale; Onofrio A Catalano; Sanjay Saini; Peter F Hahn; Dushyant V Sahani
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Expression of OATP1B3 determines uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Masato Narita; Etsuro Hatano; Shigeki Arizono; Aya Miyagawa-Hayashino; Hiroyoshi Isoda; Koji Kitamura; Kojiro Taura; Kentaro Yasuchika; Takashi Nitta; Iwao Ikai; Shinji Uemoto
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-04-29       Impact factor: 7.527

7.  Phase II clinical evaluation of Gd-EOB-DTPA: dose, safety aspects, and pulse sequence.

Authors:  P Reimer; E J Rummeny; K Shamsi; T Balzer; H E Daldrup; B Tombach; T Hesse; T Berns; P E Peters
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-04       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 8.  Magnetic resonance imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma: a pictorial review of novel insights into pathophysiological features revealed by magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Ryota Shimofusa; Takuya Ueda; Takashi Kishimoto; Masayuki Nakajima; Masaharu Yoshikawa; Fukuo Kondo; Hisao Ito
Journal:  J Hepatobiliary Pancreat Sci       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 7.027

9.  Diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid (Primovist)-enhanced MRI and spiral CT for a therapeutic strategy: comparison with intraoperative and histopathologic findings in focal liver lesions.

Authors:  Renate Hammerstingl; Alexander Huppertz; Josy Breuer; Thomas Balzer; Anthony Blakeborough; Rick Carter; Lluis Castells Fusté; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Werner Judmaier; Michael Laniado; Riccardo M Manfredi; Didier G Mathieu; Dieter Müller; Koenraad Mortelè; Peter Reimer; Maximilian F Reiser; Philip J Robinson; Kohkan Shamsi; Michael Strotzer; Matthias Taupitz; Bernd Tombach; Gianluca Valeri; Bernhard E van Beers; Thomas J Vogl
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-12-06       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 10.  Contrast agents for hepatic MRI.

Authors:  Giovanni Morana; Elisabetta Salviato; Alessandro Guarise
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2007-10-01       Impact factor: 3.909

View more
  1 in total

1.  Characterization of high- and low-risk hepatocellular adenomas by magnetic resonance imaging in an animal model of glycogen storage disease type 1A.

Authors:  Roberta Resaz; Francesca Rosa; Federica Grillo; Luca Basso; Daniela Segalerba; Andrea Puglisi; Maria Carla Bosco; Luca Mastracci; Carlo E Neumaier; Luigi Varesio; Alessandra Eva
Journal:  Dis Model Mech       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 5.758

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.