4.6 Article

Diagnostic utility of whole body Dixon MRI in multiple myeloma: A multi-reader study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 12, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180562

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Department of Health's the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) funding scheme
  2. NIHR University College London Hospitals BRC
  3. Arthritis Research UK Grant [21369]
  4. CRUK/EPSRC KCL/ UCL Comprehensive Cancer Imaging Centre
  5. Cancer Research UK [15953] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institute for Health Research [CL-2007-18-015] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To determine which of four Dixon image types [in-phase (IP), out-of-phase (OP), fat only (FO) and water-only (WO)] is most sensitive for detecting multiple myeloma (MM) focal lesions on whole body MRI (WB-MRI) images. MethodsThirty patients with clinically-suspected MM underwent WB-MRI at 3 Tesla. Unenhanced IP, OP, FO and WO Dixon images were generated and read by four radiologists. On each image type, each radiologist identified and labelled all visible myeloma lesions in the bony pelvis. Each identified lesion was compared with a reference standard consisting of pre- and post-contrast Dixon and diffusion weighted imaging (read by a further consultant radiologist) to determine whether the lesion was truly positive. Lesion count, true positives, sensitivity, and positive predictive value were compared across the four Dixon image types. Results Lesion count, true positives, sensitivity and confidence scores were all significantly higher on FO images than on IP images (p>0.05). Discussion FO images are more sensitive than other Dixon image types for MM focal lesions, and should be preferentially read by radiologists to improve diagnostic accuracy and reporting efficiency.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available