Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study


Clauser, Paola; Marcon, Magda; Maieron, Marta; Zuiani, Chiara; Bazzocchi, Massimo; Baltzer, Pascal A T (2016). Is there a systematic bias of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements of the breast if measured on different workstations? An inter- and intra-reader agreement study. European Radiology, 26(7):2291-2296.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions. METHODS Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland-Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %. CONCLUSION Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation. KEY POINTS • ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used. • ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable. • Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems. • Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the influence of post-processing systems, intra- and inter-reader agreement on the variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in breast lesions. METHODS Forty-one patients with 41 biopsy-proven breast lesions gave their informed consent and were included in this prospective IRB-approved study. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were performed at 1.5 T using an EPI-DWI sequence, with b-values of 0 and 1000 s/mm(2). Two radiologists (R1, R2) reviewed the images in separate sessions and measured the ADC for lesion, using MRI-workstation (S-WS), PACS-workstation (P-WS) and a commercial DICOM viewer (O-SW). Agreement was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman plots and coefficient of variation (CV). RESULTS Thirty-one malignant, two high-risk and eight benign mass-like lesions were analysed. Intra-reader agreement was almost perfect (ICC-R1 = 0.974; ICC-R2 = 0.990) while inter-reader agreement was substantial (ICC from 0.615 to 0.682). Bland-Altman plots revealed a significant bias in ADC values measured between O-SW and S-WS (P = 0.025), no further systematic differences were identified. CV varied from 6.8 % to 7.9 %. CONCLUSION Post-processing systems may have a significant, although minor, impact on ADC measurements in breast lesions. While intra-reader agreement is high, the main source of ADC variability seems to be caused by inter-reader variation. KEY POINTS • ADC provides quantitative information on breast lesions independent from the system used. • ADC measurement using different workstations and software systems is generally reliable. • Systematic, but minor, differences may occur between different post-processing systems. • Inter-reader agreement of ADC measurements exceeded intra-reader agreement.

Statistics

Citations

8 citations in Web of Science®
4 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:July 2016
Deposited On:08 Sep 2016 10:35
Last Modified:09 Sep 2016 07:55
Publisher:Springer
ISSN:0938-7994
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-015-4051-2
PubMed ID:26443604

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher