Marcus Stangeland1, Trond Engjom1,2, Martin Mezl3, Radovan Jirik4, Odd Helge Gilja1,5, Georg Dimcevski1,5, Kim Nylund5. 1. Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway. 2. Department of Medicine, Haukeland Universitetssjukehus, Bergen, Norway. 3. Dept. of Biomedical Engineering, Brno Univ. of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic. 4. Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Institute of Scientific Instruments, Brno, Czech Republic. 5. National Center of Ultrasound in Gastroenterology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) can be used for calculating organ perfusion. By combining bolus injection with burst replenishment, the actual mean transit time (MTT) can be estimated. Blood volume (BV) can be obtained by scaling the data to a vessel on the imaging plane. The study aim was to test interobserver agreement for repeated recordings using the same ultrasound scanner and agreement between results on two different scanner systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients under evaluation for exocrine pancreatic failure were included. Each patient was scanned two times on a GE Logiq E9 scanner, by two different observers, and once on a Philips IU22 scanner, after a bolus of 1.5 ml Sonovue. A 60-second recording of contrast enhancement was performed before the burst and the scan continued for another 30 s for reperfusion. We performed data analysis using MATLAB-based DCE-US software. An artery in the same depth as the region of interest (ROI) was used for scaling. The measurements were compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement on the Logiq E9 for MTT (ICC=0.83, confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.96) was excellent. There was poor agreement for MTT between the Logiq E9 and the IU22 (ICC=-0.084, CI -0.68-0.58). The interobserver agreement for blood volume measurements was excellent on the Logiq E9 (ICC=0.9286, CI 0.7250-0.98) and between scanners (ICC=0.86, CI=0.50-0.97). CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement was excellent using the same scanner for both parameters and between scanners for BV, but the comparison between two scanners did not yield acceptable agreement for MTT. This was probably due to incomplete bursting of bubbles in some of the recordings on the IU22.
PURPOSE: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) can be used for calculating organ perfusion. By combining bolus injection with burst replenishment, the actual mean transit time (MTT) can be estimated. Blood volume (BV) can be obtained by scaling the data to a vessel on the imaging plane. The study aim was to test interobserver agreement for repeated recordings using the same ultrasound scanner and agreement between results on two different scanner systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients under evaluation for exocrine pancreatic failure were included. Each patient was scanned two times on a GE Logiq E9 scanner, by two different observers, and once on a Philips IU22 scanner, after a bolus of 1.5 ml Sonovue. A 60-second recording of contrast enhancement was performed before the burst and the scan continued for another 30 s for reperfusion. We performed data analysis using MATLAB-based DCE-US software. An artery in the same depth as the region of interest (ROI) was used for scaling. The measurements were compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement on the Logiq E9 for MTT (ICC=0.83, confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.96) was excellent. There was poor agreement for MTT between the Logiq E9 and the IU22 (ICC=-0.084, CI -0.68-0.58). The interobserver agreement for blood volume measurements was excellent on the Logiq E9 (ICC=0.9286, CI 0.7250-0.98) and between scanners (ICC=0.86, CI=0.50-0.97). CONCLUSION: Interobserver agreement was excellent using the same scanner for both parameters and between scanners for BV, but the comparison between two scanners did not yield acceptable agreement for MTT. This was probably due to incomplete bursting of bubbles in some of the recordings on the IU22.
Authors: Mostafa Atri; John M Hudson; Mehrdad Sinaei; Ross Williams; Laurent Milot; Hadas Moshonov; Peter N Burns; Georg A Bjarnason Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2015-12-19 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: F Piscaglia; C Nolsøe; C F Dietrich; D O Cosgrove; O H Gilja; M Bachmann Nielsen; T Albrecht; L Barozzi; M Bertolotto; O Catalano; M Claudon; D A Clevert; J M Correas; M D'Onofrio; F M Drudi; J Eyding; M Giovannini; M Hocke; A Ignee; E M Jung; A S Klauser; N Lassau; E Leen; G Mathis; A Saftoiu; G Seidel; P S Sidhu; G ter Haar; D Timmerman; H P Weskott Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: M-X Tang; H Mulvana; T Gauthier; A K P Lim; D O Cosgrove; R J Eckersley; E Stride Journal: Interface Focus Date: 2011-05-18 Impact factor: 3.906
Authors: Michel Claudon; Christoph F Dietrich; Byung Ihn Choi; David O Cosgrove; Masatoshi Kudo; Christian P Nolsøe; Fabio Piscaglia; Stephanie R Wilson; Richard G Barr; Maria C Chammas; Nitin G Chaubal; Min-Hua Chen; Dirk Andre Clevert; Jean Michel Correas; Hong Ding; Flemming Forsberg; J Brian Fowlkes; Robert N Gibson; Barry B Goldberg; Nathalie Lassau; Edward L S Leen; Robert F Mattrey; Fuminori Moriyasu; Luigi Solbiati; Hans-Peter Weskott; Hui-Xiong Xu Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: F Zink; W Kratzer; S Schmidt; S Oeztuerk; R A Mason; M Porzner; J Klaus; M M Haenle; T Graeter Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2015-08-07 Impact factor: 6.548