4.2 Article

Region of interest demarcation for quantification of the apparent diffusion coefficient in breast lesions and its interobserver variability

期刊

DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 123-127

出版社

AVES
DOI: 10.5152/dir.2014.14217

关键词

-

资金

  1. Foundation of Science and Technology, Polytechnic Institute of Porto [SFRH/BD/50027/2009, Pest-OE/SAU/UI0645/2011]
  2. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PEst-OE/SAU/UI0645/2011] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE We aimed to compare two different methods of region of interest (ROI) demarcation and determine interobserver variability on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in breast lesions. METHODS Thirty-two patients with 39 lesions were evaluated with a 3.0 Tesla scanner using a diffusion-weighted sequence with several b-values. Two observers independently performed the ADC measurements using: 1) a small fixed area of 10 mm(2) ROI within the area with highest restriction; 2) a large ROI so as to include the whole lesion. Differences were assessed using the Wilcoxon-rank test. Bland-Altman method and Spearman coefficient were applied for interobserver variability and correlation analysis. RESULTS ADC values measured using the two ROI demarcation methods were significantly different for both observers (P = 0.026; P = 0.033). There was no interobserver variability in ADC values using either method (large ROI, P = 0.21; small ROI, P = 0.64). ADC values of malignant lesions were significantly different between the two methods (P < 0.001). Variability in ADC was <= 0.008x10(-3) mm(2)/s for both methods. When using the same method, ADC values were significantly correlated between the observers (small ROI: r=0.990, P < 0.001; large ROI: r=0.985, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION The choice of ROI demarcation method influences ADC measurements. Small ROIs show less overlap in ADC values and higher ADC reproducibility, suggesting that this method may improve lesion discrimination. Interobserver variability was low for both methods.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据