PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The consistency of pancreatic apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameter values across different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices significantly impacts the patient\'s diagnosis and treatment.
OBJECTIVE: To explore consistency in image quality, ADC values, and IVIM parameter values among different MRI devices in pancreatic examinations.
METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. In total, 22 healthy volunteers (10 males and 12 females) aged 24-61 years (mean, 28.9 ± 2.3 years) underwent pancreatic diffusion-weighted imaging using 3.0T MRI equipment from three vendors. Two independent observers subjectively scored image quality and measured the pancreas\'s overall ADC values and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Subsequently, regions of interest (ROIs) were delineated for the IVIM parameters (true diffusion coefficient, pseudo-diffusion coefficient, and perfusion fraction) using post-processing software. These ROIs were on the head, body, and tail of the pancrease. The subjective image ratings were assessed using the kappa consistency test. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mixed linear models were used to evaluate each device\'s quantitative parameter values. Finally, a pairwise analysis of IVIM parameter values across each device was performed using Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: The Kappa value for the subjective ratings of the different observers was 0.776 (P < 0.05). The ICC values for inter-observer and intra-observer agreements for the quantitative parameters were 0.803 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.684-0.880] and 0.883 (95%CI: 0.760-0.945), respectively (P < 0.05). The ICCs for the SNR between different devices was comparable (P > 0.05), and the ICCs for the ADC values from different devices were 0.870, 0.707, and 0.808, respectively (P < 0.05). Notably, only a few statistically significant inter-device agreements were observed for different IVIM parameters, and among those, the ICC values were generally low. The mixed linear model results indicated differences (P < 0.05) in the f-value for the pancreas head, D-value for the pancreas body, and D-value for the pancreas tail obtained using different MRI machines. The Bland-Altman plots showed significant variability at some data points.
CONCLUSIONS: ADC values are consistent among different devices, but the IVIM parameters\' repeatability is moderate. Therefore, the variability in the IVIM parameter values may be associated with using different MRI machines. Thus, caution should be exercised when using IVIM parameter values to assess the pancreas.
OBJECTIVE: To explore consistency in image quality, ADC values, and IVIM parameter values among different MRI devices in pancreatic examinations.
METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. In total, 22 healthy volunteers (10 males and 12 females) aged 24-61 years (mean, 28.9 ± 2.3 years) underwent pancreatic diffusion-weighted imaging using 3.0T MRI equipment from three vendors. Two independent observers subjectively scored image quality and measured the pancreas\'s overall ADC values and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Subsequently, regions of interest (ROIs) were delineated for the IVIM parameters (true diffusion coefficient, pseudo-diffusion coefficient, and perfusion fraction) using post-processing software. These ROIs were on the head, body, and tail of the pancrease. The subjective image ratings were assessed using the kappa consistency test. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mixed linear models were used to evaluate each device\'s quantitative parameter values. Finally, a pairwise analysis of IVIM parameter values across each device was performed using Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: The Kappa value for the subjective ratings of the different observers was 0.776 (P < 0.05). The ICC values for inter-observer and intra-observer agreements for the quantitative parameters were 0.803 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.684-0.880] and 0.883 (95%CI: 0.760-0.945), respectively (P < 0.05). The ICCs for the SNR between different devices was comparable (P > 0.05), and the ICCs for the ADC values from different devices were 0.870, 0.707, and 0.808, respectively (P < 0.05). Notably, only a few statistically significant inter-device agreements were observed for different IVIM parameters, and among those, the ICC values were generally low. The mixed linear model results indicated differences (P < 0.05) in the f-value for the pancreas head, D-value for the pancreas body, and D-value for the pancreas tail obtained using different MRI machines. The Bland-Altman plots showed significant variability at some data points.
CONCLUSIONS: ADC values are consistent among different devices, but the IVIM parameters\' repeatability is moderate. Therefore, the variability in the IVIM parameter values may be associated with using different MRI machines. Thus, caution should be exercised when using IVIM parameter values to assess the pancreas.
摘要：
背景：不同磁共振成像（MRI）设备中胰腺表观扩散系数（ADC）值和体素内不相干运动（IVIM）参数值的一致性显著影响患者的诊断和治疗。
目的：为了探索图像质量的一致性，ADC值,胰腺检查中不同MRI设备之间的IVIM参数值。
方法：这项回顾性研究得到了当地伦理委员会的批准，并获得所有参与者的知情同意书.总的来说,22名健康志愿者(10名男性和12名女性)，年龄24-61岁(平均值，28.9±2.3年）使用来自三个供应商的3.0TMRI设备进行了胰腺扩散加权成像。两名独立观察者对图像质量进行主观评分，并测量胰腺的总体ADC值和信噪比（SNR）。随后，针对IVIM参数(真实扩散系数，伪扩散系数，和灌注分数）使用后处理软件。这些ROI在头上，身体,和胰腺的尾巴.使用kappa一致性检验评估主观图像评级。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和混合线性模型来评估每个设备的定量参数值。最后,使用Bland-Altman图对每个装置的IVIM参数值进行成对分析。
结果：不同观察者主观评分的Kappa值为0.776（P<0.05）。观察者间和观察者内定量参数协议的ICC值分别为0.803[95%置信区间(CI):0.684-0.880]和0.883(95CI:0.760-0.945),分别为(P<0.05)。不同设备之间信噪比的ICC具有可比性(P>0.05)，不同器件ADC值的ICC分别为0.870、0.707和0.808(P<0.05)。值得注意的是,对于不同的IVIM参数，仅观察到少数具有统计学意义的器械间协议，其中，ICC值普遍较低.混合线性模型结果显示胰头f值存在差异(P<0.05),胰体的D值,以及使用不同MRI机器获得的胰尾D值。Bland-Altman图在某些数据点显示出显着的变异性。
结论：ADC值在不同器件之间是一致的，但IVIM参数重复性适中。因此,例如,IVIM参数值的可变性可以与使用不同的MRI机器相关联。因此，使用IVIM参数值评估胰腺时应谨慎。
目的：为了探索图像质量的一致性，ADC值,胰腺检查中不同MRI设备之间的IVIM参数值。
方法：这项回顾性研究得到了当地伦理委员会的批准，并获得所有参与者的知情同意书.总的来说,22名健康志愿者(10名男性和12名女性)，年龄24-61岁(平均值，28.9±2.3年）使用来自三个供应商的3.0TMRI设备进行了胰腺扩散加权成像。两名独立观察者对图像质量进行主观评分，并测量胰腺的总体ADC值和信噪比（SNR）。随后，针对IVIM参数(真实扩散系数，伪扩散系数，和灌注分数）使用后处理软件。这些ROI在头上，身体,和胰腺的尾巴.使用kappa一致性检验评估主观图像评级。使用组内相关系数（ICC）和混合线性模型来评估每个设备的定量参数值。最后,使用Bland-Altman图对每个装置的IVIM参数值进行成对分析。
结果：不同观察者主观评分的Kappa值为0.776（P<0.05）。观察者间和观察者内定量参数协议的ICC值分别为0.803[95%置信区间(CI):0.684-0.880]和0.883(95CI:0.760-0.945),分别为(P<0.05)。不同设备之间信噪比的ICC具有可比性(P>0.05)，不同器件ADC值的ICC分别为0.870、0.707和0.808(P<0.05)。值得注意的是,对于不同的IVIM参数，仅观察到少数具有统计学意义的器械间协议，其中，ICC值普遍较低.混合线性模型结果显示胰头f值存在差异(P<0.05),胰体的D值,以及使用不同MRI机器获得的胰尾D值。Bland-Altman图在某些数据点显示出显着的变异性。
结论：ADC值在不同器件之间是一致的，但IVIM参数重复性适中。因此,例如,IVIM参数值的可变性可以与使用不同的MRI机器相关联。因此，使用IVIM参数值评估胰腺时应谨慎。
