Jisun Hwang1, Hee Mang Yoon2, Ah Young Jung2, Jin Seong Lee2, Young Ah Cho2. 1. Department of Radiology, Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University Medical Center, Hwaseong, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the feasibility and clinical applicability of ElastQ imaging (Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands) with that of SuperSonic shear imaging (SSI; SuperSonic Imagine, Aix-en-Provence, France) using an elastographic phantom and a pilot study of patients. METHODS: Two-dimensional shear wave elastography measurement was performed by ElastQ imaging and SSI by 2 radiologists. An elastographic phantom with 5 target elasticities at 2 acquisition depths was used. The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were evaluated for repeatability and interobserver agreement, respectively. The mean elasticities of the systems at each target were compared. The proportions of measurements that were out of the range of expected values and measurement errors were calculated to determine accuracy. Liver stiffness (LS) was measured by both systems in 27 children and young adult patients with various liver diseases. RESULTS: Both systems provided high repeatability in elasticity measurements of phantom targets (coefficients of variation, 0.69%-15.82%), and there was excellent interobserver agreement (ICC, 0.992). Most (90%) mean elasticities of targets were significantly different between the techniques (P ≤ .002) and acquisition depths (P ≤ .004). ElastQ imaging had significantly lower proportions of out-of-range measurements and measurement errors (P ≤ .003) than SSI. In patients with liver disease, LS measurements of the systems were strongly correlated (ρ = 0.955; P < .001) and had excellent agreement (ICC, 0.951; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ElastQ imaging had comparably good results in terms of repeatability, interobserver agreement, and accuracy in the phantom model compared with SSI. The pilot patient study showed strong correlations in LS values between the systems.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the feasibility and clinical applicability of ElastQ imaging (Philips Healthcare, Best, the Netherlands) with that of SuperSonic shear imaging (SSI; SuperSonic Imagine, Aix-en-Provence, France) using an elastographic phantom and a pilot study of patients. METHODS: Two-dimensional shear wave elastography measurement was performed by ElastQ imaging and SSI by 2 radiologists. An elastographic phantom with 5 target elasticities at 2 acquisition depths was used. The coefficients of variation and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were evaluated for repeatability and interobserver agreement, respectively. The mean elasticities of the systems at each target were compared. The proportions of measurements that were out of the range of expected values and measurement errors were calculated to determine accuracy. Liver stiffness (LS) was measured by both systems in 27 children and young adult patients with various liver diseases. RESULTS: Both systems provided high repeatability in elasticity measurements of phantom targets (coefficients of variation, 0.69%-15.82%), and there was excellent interobserver agreement (ICC, 0.992). Most (90%) mean elasticities of targets were significantly different between the techniques (P ≤ .002) and acquisition depths (P ≤ .004). ElastQ imaging had significantly lower proportions of out-of-range measurements and measurement errors (P ≤ .003) than SSI. In patients with liver disease, LS measurements of the systems were strongly correlated (ρ = 0.955; P < .001) and had excellent agreement (ICC, 0.951; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ElastQ imaging had comparably good results in terms of repeatability, interobserver agreement, and accuracy in the phantom model compared with SSI. The pilot patient study showed strong correlations in LS values between the systems.
Authors: Jee Hyeon Lee; Sang Min Lee; Jeong Hee Yoon; Min-Jeong Kim; Hong Il Ha; Sung-Joon Park; Eun Soo Kim; Kwanseop Lee; Jeong Min Lee Journal: Ultrasonography Date: 2020-04-12