成像体模
再现性
图像质量
威尔科克森符号秩检验
核医学
重复性
有效扩散系数
磁共振弥散成像
质量保证
计算机科学
数学
磁共振成像
医学
人工智能
放射科
统计
曼惠特尼U检验
图像(数学)
病理
外部质量评估
作者
F. Crop,Clémence Robert,Romain Viard,Julien Dumont,Marine Kawalko,Pauline Makala,X. Liem,Imen El Aoud,Aïcha Ben Miled,Victor Chaton,Lucas Patin,Dominique Pasquier,Ophélie Guillaud,B. Vandendorpe,X. Mirabel,L. Ceugnart,Camille Decoene,T. Lacornerie
摘要
Background The choice between different diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) techniques is difficult as each comes with tradeoffs for efficient clinical routine imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy. Purpose To quantify signal‐to‐noise‐ratio (SNR) efficiency, ADC accuracy, artifacts, and distortions for different DWI acquisition techniques, coils, and scanners. Study Type Phantom, in vivo intraindividual biomarker accuracy between DWI techniques and independent ratings. Population/Phantoms NIST diffusion phantom. 51 Patients: 40 with prostate cancer and 11 with head‐and‐neck cancer at 1. 5 T Field Strength/Sequence Echo planar imaging (EPI): 1.5 T and 3 T Siemens; 3 T Philips. Distortion‐reducing: RESOLVE (1.5 and 3 T Siemens); Turbo Spin Echo (TSE)‐SPLICE (3 T Philips). Small field‐of‐view (FOV): ZoomitPro (1.5 T Siemens); IRIS (3 T Philips). Head‐and‐neck and flexible coils. Assessment SNR Efficiency, geometrical distortions, and susceptibility artifacts were quantified for different b‐values in a phantom. ADC accuracy/agreement was quantified in phantom and for 51 patients. In vivo image quality was independently rated by four experts. Statistical Tests QIBA methodology for accuracy: trueness, repeatability, reproducibility, Bland–Altman 95% Limits‐of‐Agreement (LOA) for ADC. Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank and student tests on P < 0.05 level. Results The ZoomitPro small FOV sequence improved b‐image efficiency by 8%–14%, reduced artifacts and observer scoring for most raters at the cost of smaller FOV compared to EPI. The TSE‐SPLICE technique reduced artifacts almost completely at a 24% efficiency cost compared to EPI for b ‐values ≤500 sec/mm 2 . Phantom ADC 95% LOA trueness were within ±0.03 × 10 −3 mm 2 /sec except for small FOV IRIS. The in vivo ADC agreement between techniques, however, resulted in 95% LOAs in the order of ±0.3 × 10 −3 mm 2 /sec with up to 0.2 × 10 −3 mm 2 /sec of bias. Data Conclusion ZoomitPro for Siemens and TSE SPLICE for Philips resulted in a trade‐off between efficiency and artifacts. Phantom ADC quality control largely underestimated in vivo accuracy: significant ADC bias and variability was found between techniques in vivo. Level of Evidence 3 Technical Efficacy Stage 2
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI