4.5 Article

Rectal cancer Short-term reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters in 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging

期刊

MEDICINE
卷 96, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000006866

关键词

diffusion-weighted imaging; intravoxel incoherent motion; magnetic resonance imaging; perfusion; rectal cancer

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81501469]
  2. Health Industry Special Scientific Research Project of National Health and Family Planning Commission of the People's Republic of China [201402019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the short-term test-retest reproducibility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) parameters of rectal cancer with 3.0T MRI. Twenty-six patients with rectal cancer underwent MRI, including diffusion-weighted imaging with 8 b values. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters (D, pure diffusion; f, perfusion fraction; D*, pseudodiffusion coefficient) were, respectively, calculated. The short-term test-retest reproducibility, the intra and interobserver variation of the IVIM parameters were assessed based on the repeatability coefficient and Bland-Altman limits of agreement. There was no significant intra or interobserver difference observed in the parameters on the same DW-MRI scan. The corresponding repeatability coefficient of intra-and interobserver analysis for ADC, D, f, and D* was 5.4%, 11.1%, 55.4%, and 40.3%; 10.9%, 41.6%, 134.0%, and 177.6%, respectively. The test-retest repeatability coefficient for ADC, D, f, and D* was 19.1%, 24.5%, 126.3%, and 197.4%, respectively, greater than the intraobserver values. ADC and D have better short-term test-retest reproducibility than f and D*. Considering the poor test-retest reproducibility for f and D,* variance in these 2 parameters should be interpreted with caution in longitudinal studies on rectal cancer in which treatment response and recurrence are monitored.

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

4.5
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