Measurement consistency of MR elastography at 3.0 T: comparison among three different region-of-interest placement methods

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Toshimichi Mitsufuji (1)
  Yoshinobu Shinagawa (1)
  Ritsuko Fujimitsu (1)
  Hiroshi Urakawa (1)
  Kimiyo Inoue (1)
  Koichi Takano (1)
  Kengo Yoshimitsu (1)
  
• 关键词：MR elastography ; Measurement ; Interobserver consistency ; Intraobserver consistency
• 刊名：Japanese Journal of Radiology
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：May 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：31
• 期：5
• 页码：336-341
• 全文大小：453KB
• 参考文献：1. Rouviere O, Yin M, Dresner MA, et al. MR elastography of the liver: preliminary results. Radiology. 2006;240:440-. CrossRef
  2. Huwart L, Sempoux C, Salameh N, et al. Liver fibrosis: noninvasive assessment with MR elastography versus aspartate aminotransferase-to-platelet ratio index. Radiology. 2007;245:458-6. CrossRef
  3. Klatt D, Asbach P, Rump J, et al. In vivo determination of hepatic stiffness using steady-state free precession magnetic resonance elastography. Invest Radiol. 2006;41:841-. CrossRef
  4. Huwart L, Sempoux C, Vicaut E, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography for the noninvasive staging of liver fibrosis. Gastroenterology. 2008;135:32-0. CrossRef
  5. Motosugi U, Ichikawa T, Sou H, et al. Magnetic resonance elastography of the liver: preliminary results and estimation of interrater reliability. Jpn J Radiol. 2010;28:623-. CrossRef
  6. Asbach P, Klatt D, Schlosser B, et al. Viscoelasticity-based staging of hepatic fibrosis with multifrequency MR elastography. Radiology. 2010;257:80-. CrossRef
  7. Shire NJ, Yi M, Chen J, et al. Test–retest repeatability of MR elastography for noninvasive liver fibrosis assessment in hepatitis C. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:947-5. CrossRef
  8. Hines CDG, Bley TA, Lindstrom MJ, Reeder SB. Repeatability of magnetic resonance elastography for quantification of hepatic stiffness. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:725-1. CrossRef
  9. Kim BH, Lee JM, Lee YJ, et al. MR elastography for noninvasive assessment of hepatic fibrosis: experience from a tertiary center in Asia. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:1110-. CrossRef
  10. Lee DH, Lee JM, Han JK, Choi BI. MR elastography of healthy liver parenchyma: normal value and reliability of the liver stiffness value measurement. JMRI, 2013 [pEpub ahead of print].
  11. Sonn GA, Natarajan S, Margolis DJ, et al. Targeted biopsy in the detection of prostate cancer using an office based magnetic resonance ultrasound fusion device. J Urol. 2012;189:86-. CrossRef
  12. Nishie A, Stolpen AH, Obuchi M, Kuehn DM, Dagit A, Andresen K. Evaluation of locally recurrent pelvic malignancy: performance of T2- and diffusion-weighted MRI with image fusion. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28(3):705-3. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Toshimichi Mitsufuji (1)
  Yoshinobu Shinagawa (1)
  Ritsuko Fujimitsu (1)
  Hiroshi Urakawa (1)
  Kimiyo Inoue (1)
  Koichi Takano (1)
  Kengo Yoshimitsu (1)
  
  1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka University, 7-45-1 Nanakuma Jonan-ku, Fukuoka, 814-0180, Japan
  

文摘

Purpose To test inter- and intraobserver consistency of liver stiffness measurement on MR elastography (MRE) at 3.0 T. Materials and methods Two abdominal radiologists independently measured stiffness of the liver on MRE in three volunteers and seven patients with chronic liver diseases using three different region-of-interest (ROI) placement methods. Methods 1 and 2 involved placing circular and free-hand-drawn ROIs, respectively, visually referring to anatomical (three-dimensional T1-weighted) and wave images. Method 3 involved placing ROIs on the fused images of MRE and anatomical images developed on a work station, visually referring to wave images. The inter- and intraobserver consistency was assessed with regression and Bland–Altman analysis. Results Thirty-eight images were available for measurement in total. As for interobserver consistency, method 3 showed the best regression coefficient, correlation coefficient, and y intercept. The absolute values of the interobserver differences for method 3 were significantly smaller than those of method 1 or method 2 (p?<?0.05, each). Intraobserver consistency of method 3 was excellent for both observers. Conclusion Stiffness measurement of the liver on MRE performed with the fusion method at 3.0 T provides the highest inter- and intraobserver consistency.