Gian Marco Conte1, Antonella Castellano1, Luisa Altabella1,2, Antonella Iadanza1, Marcello Cadioli1,3, Andrea Falini1, Nicoletta Anzalone4. 1. Neuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy. 2. Department of Medical Physics, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy. 3. Philips Healthcare, via Gaetano Casati 23, 20900, Monza, MB, Italy. 4. Neuroradiology Unit and CERMAC, San Raffaele Scientific Institute and Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, via Olgettina 60, 20132, Milan, Mi, Italy. anzalone.nicoletta@hsr.it.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) are useful tools in the diagnosis and follow-up of brain gliomas; nevertheless, both techniques leave the open issue of data reproducibility. We evaluated the reproducibility of data obtained using two different commercial software for perfusion maps calculation and analysis, as one of the potential sources of variability can be the software itself. METHODS: DSC and DCE analyses from 20 patients with gliomas were tested for both the intrasoftware (as intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility) and the intersoftware reproducibility, as well as the impact of different postprocessing choices [vascular input function (VIF) selection and deconvolution algorithms] on the quantification of perfusion biomarkers plasma volume (Vp), volume transfer constant (K trans) and rCBV. Data reproducibility was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: For all the biomarkers, the intra- and interobserver reproducibility resulted in almost perfect agreement in each software, whereas for the intersoftware reproducibility the value ranged from 0.311 to 0.577, suggesting fair to moderate agreement; Bland-Altman analysis showed high dispersion of data, thus confirming these findings. Comparisons of different VIF estimation methods for DCE biomarkers resulted in ICC of 0.636 for K trans and 0.662 for Vp; comparison of two deconvolution algorithms in DSC resulted in an ICC of 0.999. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single software ensures very good intraobserver and interobservers reproducibility. Caution should be taken when comparing data obtained using different software or different postprocessing within the same software, as reproducibility is not guaranteed anymore.
PURPOSE: Dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI (DSC) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE) are useful tools in the diagnosis and follow-up of brain gliomas; nevertheless, both techniques leave the open issue of data reproducibility. We evaluated the reproducibility of data obtained using two different commercial software for perfusion maps calculation and analysis, as one of the potential sources of variability can be the software itself. METHODS: DSC and DCE analyses from 20 patients with gliomas were tested for both the intrasoftware (as intraobserver and interobserver reproducibility) and the intersoftware reproducibility, as well as the impact of different postprocessing choices [vascular input function (VIF) selection and deconvolution algorithms] on the quantification of perfusion biomarkers plasma volume (Vp), volume transfer constant (K trans) and rCBV. Data reproducibility was evaluated with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: For all the biomarkers, the intra- and interobserver reproducibility resulted in almost perfect agreement in each software, whereas for the intersoftware reproducibility the value ranged from 0.311 to 0.577, suggesting fair to moderate agreement; Bland-Altman analysis showed high dispersion of data, thus confirming these findings. Comparisons of different VIF estimation methods for DCE biomarkers resulted in ICC of 0.636 for K trans and 0.662 for Vp; comparison of two deconvolution algorithms in DSC resulted in an ICC of 0.999. CONCLUSIONS: The use of single software ensures very good intraobserver and interobservers reproducibility. Caution should be taken when comparing data obtained using different software or different postprocessing within the same software, as reproducibility is not guaranteed anymore.
Authors: Tobias Heye; Matthew S Davenport; Jeffrey J Horvath; Sebastian Feuerlein; Steven R Breault; Mustafa R Bashir; Elmar M Merkle; Daniel T Boll Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kathleen M Schmainda; Melissa Prah; Jennifer Connelly; Scott D Rand; Raymond G Hoffman; Wade Mueller; Mark G Malkin Journal: Neuro Oncol Date: 2014-01-15 Impact factor: 12.300
Authors: T B Nguyen; G O Cron; K Perdrizet; K Bezzina; C H Torres; S Chakraborty; J Woulfe; G H Jansen; J Sinclair; R E Thornhill; C Foottit; B Zanette; I G Cameron Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Anna K Heye; Ross D Culling; Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Michael J Thrippleton; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2014-09-10 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: G M Conte; L Altabella; A Castellano; V Cuccarini; A Bizzi; M Grimaldi; A Costa; M Caulo; A Falini; N Anzalone Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-04-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Manuel Alexander Schmidt; Michael Knott; Philip Hoelter; Tobias Engelhorn; Elna Marie Larsson; Than Nguyen; Marco Essig; Arnd Doerfler Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2019-10-24 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Carole H Sudre; Jasmina Panovska-Griffiths; Eser Sanverdi; Sebastian Brandner; Vasileios K Katsaros; George Stranjalis; Francesca B Pizzini; Claudio Ghimenton; Katarina Surlan-Popovic; Jernej Avsenik; Maria Vittoria Spampinato; Mario Nigro; Arindam R Chatterjee; Arnaud Attye; Sylvie Grand; Alexandre Krainik; Nicoletta Anzalone; Gian Marco Conte; Valeria Romeo; Lorenzo Ugga; Andrea Elefante; Elisa Francesca Ciceri; Elia Guadagno; Eftychia Kapsalaki; Diana Roettger; Javier Gonzalez; Timothé Boutelier; M Jorge Cardoso; Sotirios Bisdas Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-07-06 Impact factor: 2.796