Gustavo Felipe Luersen1, W Wei, Eric P Tamm, Priya R Bhosale, Janio Szklaruk. 1. From the *Hospital Moinhos de Vento Rua Gonçalo de Carvalho, Porto Alegre/RS, Brazil; †Biostatistics, and ‡Diagnostic Radiology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare the interobserver and intraobserver variability for the measurement of the size of liver metastases in patients with carcinoid tumors with various magnetic resonance (MR) series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective institutional review board-approved study, 30 patients with liver metastases from a carcinoid primary had a complete MR examination of the abdomen at 1.5 T with gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA). The complete MR examination included T1 (in-phase [IP]/out-of-phase [OOP], T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, pre-Gd-EOB-DTPA and post-Gd-EOB-DTPA 3D gradient echo (4 phases plus 20-minute hepatobiliary phase [HBP] Gd]). Four readers reviewed each series independently. The measurement for each lesion was compared to HBP-Gd images. The sensitivity for detection of each lesion was compared to HBP-Gd. Variance component analysis was used to estimate variance due to patient, lesion within patient, and reader by sequence. Linear mixed model was used to compare lesion size between sequences. RESULTS: The HBP-Gd had the smallest interreader variability. There was no significant difference between series with respect to interreader variability. Lesion sizes measured in diffusion-weighted imaging was significantly higher. T2-weighted imaging was the closest to HBP-Gd. Lesion sizes measured with the other sequences were significantly smaller. There was significant difference in sensitivity of lesion detection of some series when compared to HBP-Gd. CONCLUSION: The HBP-Gd series had the smallest interreader variability and is the recommended series to measure lesion size for evaluation of response to treatment.
PURPOSE: Our aim was to compare the interobserver and intraobserver variability for the measurement of the size of liver metastases in patients with carcinoid tumors with various magnetic resonance (MR) series. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective institutional review board-approved study, 30 patients with liver metastases from a carcinoid primary had a complete MR examination of the abdomen at 1.5 T with gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA). The complete MR examination included T1 (in-phase [IP]/out-of-phase [OOP], T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, pre-Gd-EOB-DTPA and post-Gd-EOB-DTPA 3D gradient echo (4 phases plus 20-minute hepatobiliary phase [HBP] Gd]). Four readers reviewed each series independently. The measurement for each lesion was compared to HBP-Gd images. The sensitivity for detection of each lesion was compared to HBP-Gd. Variance component analysis was used to estimate variance due to patient, lesion within patient, and reader by sequence. Linear mixed model was used to compare lesion size between sequences. RESULTS: The HBP-Gd had the smallest interreader variability. There was no significant difference between series with respect to interreader variability. Lesion sizes measured in diffusion-weighted imaging was significantly higher. T2-weighted imaging was the closest to HBP-Gd. Lesion sizes measured with the other sequences were significantly smaller. There was significant difference in sensitivity of lesion detection of some series when compared to HBP-Gd. CONCLUSION: The HBP-Gd series had the smallest interreader variability and is the recommended series to measure lesion size for evaluation of response to treatment.
Authors: Vanessa Kulemann; Wolfgang Schima; Dietmar Tamandl; Klaus Kaczirek; Thomas Gruenberger; Friedrich Wrba; Michael Weber; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Mirko Leonhardt; Markus Keiser; Stefan Oswald; Jens Kühn; Jia Jia; Markus Grube; Heyo K Kroemer; Werner Siegmund; Werner Weitschies Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2010-04-20 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Fernanda D Gonzalez-Guindalini; Marcos P F Botelho; Carla B Harmath; Kumaresan Sandrasegaran; Frank H Miller; Riad Salem; Vahid Yaghmai Journal: Radiographics Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Ashley Kieran Clift; Mark Kidd; Lisa Bodei; Christos Toumpanakis; Richard P Baum; Kjell Oberg; Irvin M Modlin; Andrea Frilling Journal: Neuroendocrinology Date: 2019-09-27 Impact factor: 5.135
Authors: Anna-Karin Elf; Mats Andersson; Olof Henrikson; Oscar Jalnefjord; Maria Ljungberg; Johanna Svensson; Bo Wängberg; Viktor Johanson Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-02 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jimi Huh; Jisuk Park; Kyung Won Kim; Hyoung Jung Kim; Jong Seok Lee; Jong Hwa Lee; Yoong Ki Jeong; Atul B Shinagare; Nikhil H Ramaiya Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2018-10-18 Impact factor: 3.500