Adam D Singer1, Pradip M Pattany2, Laura M Fayad3, Jonathan Tresley4, Ty K Subhawong2. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University Hospital, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: AdamSinger82@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Miami, Miami, FL. 3. Department of Radiology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Determine interobserver concordance of semiautomated three-dimensional volumetric and two-dimensional manual measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in soft tissue masses (STMs) and explore standard deviation (SD) as a measure of tumor ADC heterogeneity. RESULTS: Concordance correlation coefficients for mean ADC increased with more extensive sampling. Agreement on the SD of tumor ADC values was better for large regions of interest and multislice methods. Correlation between mean and SD ADC was low, suggesting that these parameters are relatively independent. CONCLUSION: Mean ADC of STMs can be determined by volumetric quantification with high interobserver agreement. STM heterogeneity merits further investigation as a potential imaging biomarker that complements other functional magnetic resonance imaging parameters.
PURPOSE: Determine interobserver concordance of semiautomated three-dimensional volumetric and two-dimensional manual measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values in soft tissue masses (STMs) and explore standard deviation (SD) as a measure of tumor ADC heterogeneity. RESULTS: Concordance correlation coefficients for mean ADC increased with more extensive sampling. Agreement on the SD of tumor ADC values was better for large regions of interest and multislice methods. Correlation between mean and SD ADC was low, suggesting that these parameters are relatively independent. CONCLUSION: Mean ADC of STMs can be determined by volumetric quantification with high interobserver agreement. STM heterogeneity merits further investigation as a potential imaging biomarker that complements other functional magnetic resonance imaging parameters.
Authors: N M deSouza; J M Winfield; J C Waterton; A Weller; M-V Papoutsaki; S J Doran; D J Collins; L Fournier; D Sullivan; T Chenevert; A Jackson; M Boss; S Trattnig; Y Liu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Antonio Esposito; Anna Palmisano; Sofia Antunes; Caterina Colantoni; Paola Maria Vittoria Rancoita; Davide Vignale; Francesca Baratto; Paolo Della Bella; Alessandro Del Maschio; Francesco De Cobelli Journal: Mol Imaging Biol Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.488