Impact of 3 Tesla MRI on interobserver agreement in clinically isolated syndrome: A MAGNIMS multicentre study.
Multiple sclerosis
clinically isolated syndrome
interobserver variation
magnetic resonance imaging
multicentre study
Journal
Multiple sclerosis (Houndmills, Basingstoke, England)
ISSN: 1477-0970
Titre abrégé: Mult Scler
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9509185
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2019
03 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
13
1
2018
medline:
14
1
2020
entrez:
13
1
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Compared to 1.5 T, 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increases signal-to-noise ratio leading to improved image quality. However, its clinical relevance in clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to investigate how 3 T MRI affects the agreement between raters on lesion detection and diagnosis. We selected 30 patients and 10 healthy controls from our ongoing prospective multicentre cohort. All subjects received baseline 1.5 and 3 T brain and spinal cord MRI. Patients also received follow-up brain MRI at 3-6 months. Four experienced neuroradiologists and four less-experienced raters scored the number of lesions per anatomical region and determined dissemination in space and time (McDonald 2010). In controls, the mean number of lesions per rater was 0.16 at 1.5 T and 0.38 at 3 T ( p = 0.005). For patients, this was 4.18 and 4.40, respectively ( p = 0.657). Inter-rater agreement on involvement per anatomical region and dissemination in space and time was moderate to good for both field strengths. 3 T slightly improved agreement between experienced raters, but slightly decreased agreement between less-experienced raters. Overall, the interobserver agreement was moderate to good. 3 T appears to improve the reading for experienced readers, underlining the benefit of additional training.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Compared to 1.5 T, 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increases signal-to-noise ratio leading to improved image quality. However, its clinical relevance in clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis remains uncertain.
OBJECTIVES
The purpose of this study was to investigate how 3 T MRI affects the agreement between raters on lesion detection and diagnosis.
METHODS
We selected 30 patients and 10 healthy controls from our ongoing prospective multicentre cohort. All subjects received baseline 1.5 and 3 T brain and spinal cord MRI. Patients also received follow-up brain MRI at 3-6 months. Four experienced neuroradiologists and four less-experienced raters scored the number of lesions per anatomical region and determined dissemination in space and time (McDonald 2010).
RESULTS
In controls, the mean number of lesions per rater was 0.16 at 1.5 T and 0.38 at 3 T ( p = 0.005). For patients, this was 4.18 and 4.40, respectively ( p = 0.657). Inter-rater agreement on involvement per anatomical region and dissemination in space and time was moderate to good for both field strengths. 3 T slightly improved agreement between experienced raters, but slightly decreased agreement between less-experienced raters.
CONCLUSION
Overall, the interobserver agreement was moderate to good. 3 T appears to improve the reading for experienced readers, underlining the benefit of additional training.
Identifiants
pubmed: 29327668
doi: 10.1177/1352458517751647
pmc: PMC6393953
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
352-360Références
J Neurol Sci. 2009 Apr 15;279(1-2):99-105
pubmed: 19178916
Nat Rev Neurol. 2015 Oct;11(10):597-606
pubmed: 26369511
Neurology. 2013 Jan 1;80(1):69-75
pubmed: 23243070
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2012 May;22(2):135-57, ix
pubmed: 22548925
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Mar;15(3):292-303
pubmed: 26822746
Nat Rev Neurol. 2015 Aug;11(8):471-82
pubmed: 26149978
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Sep;27(8):1794-8
pubmed: 16971638
Brain. 2015 Jul;138(Pt 7):1863-74
pubmed: 25902415
Arch Neurol. 2004 Feb;61(2):217-21
pubmed: 14967769
Neurology. 2016 Sep 27;87(13):1368-74
pubmed: 27566747
Eur Radiol. 2012 Jan;22(1):221-31
pubmed: 21874361
Neurology. 2016 Aug 16;87(7):680-3
pubmed: 27421541
J Neurol. 2008 Aug;255(8):1159-63
pubmed: 18446305
Neuroradiology. 2009 May;51(5):279-92
pubmed: 19277621
Neurology. 2010 Nov 23;75(21):1933-8
pubmed: 21098409
Ann Neurol. 2011 Jul;70(1):182-3
pubmed: 21710623
Neuroimaging Clin N Am. 2009 Feb;19(1):81-99
pubmed: 19064202
Eur Radiol. 2013 Feb;23(2):528-40
pubmed: 22898935
Eur Radiol. 2006 Sep;16(9):2067-73
pubmed: 16649033
Ann Neurol. 2011 Feb;69(2):292-302
pubmed: 21387374
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014 Jan;85(1):60-6
pubmed: 23813636
Arch Ophthalmol. 2003 Jul;121(7):944-9
pubmed: 12860795
Brain. 2016 May;139(Pt 5):1472-81
pubmed: 26956422
Eur Radiol. 2014 Apr;24(4):841-9
pubmed: 24317461
Eur Radiol. 2010 Jul;20(7):1675-83
pubmed: 20094887
Neurology. 2004 Jan 27;62(2):226-33
pubmed: 14745058
Eur Radiol. 2007 Jan;17(1):67-71
pubmed: 16708216
Mult Scler. 2011 Nov;17(11):1313-23
pubmed: 21788249
Brain. 2008 Mar;131(Pt 3):808-17
pubmed: 18234696
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
EPMA J. 2015 Aug 27;6(1):16
pubmed: 26312125
Neurology. 2011 Feb 8;76(6):534-9
pubmed: 21300968