Reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping in lumbar vertebra.
Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)
lumbar vertebra
osteoporosis
reproducibility
Journal
Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery
ISSN: 2223-4292
Titre abrégé: Quant Imaging Med Surg
Pays: China
ID NLM: 101577942
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2019
Apr 2019
Historique:
entrez:
31
5
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
31
5
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in the lumbar vertebra. From May 2017 to September 2017, 61 subjects who underwent QSM MRI and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. QSM examination was performed two times with an interval of less than 1 week for each subject. For each data set, the QSM and QCT values on L1-L4 vertebral bodies were measured independently by two radiologists. The correlation coefficient between QSM and QCT values was calculated on L1-L4 vertebral bodies. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the inter-observer reliability and the inter-scan reproducibility on QSM. A total of 61 subjects (mean age, 55.5±13.7 years) with 244 vertebral bodies were analyzed. Overall, QSM and QCT showed good correlation in the L1-L4 vertebral body, especially in the L3 (R=-0.75). QSM value showed excellent inter-observer reliability (ICC, 0.992, 95% CI: 0.985-0.996) with a mean difference of 0.35 and 95% limits of agreements of within -22.74 to 23.45 ppb, and very good inter-scan reproducibility (ICC, 0.932, 95% CI: 0.886-0.959) with a mean difference of -7.60 ppb and 95% limits of agreements of within of -92.85 to 77.62 ppb. QSM in the lumbar vertebra is a reliable and reproducible technique for evaluating bone mineral density.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in the lumbar vertebra.
METHODS
METHODS
From May 2017 to September 2017, 61 subjects who underwent QSM MRI and quantitative computed tomography (QCT) were consecutively enrolled in this prospective study. QSM examination was performed two times with an interval of less than 1 week for each subject. For each data set, the QSM and QCT values on L1-L4 vertebral bodies were measured independently by two radiologists. The correlation coefficient between QSM and QCT values was calculated on L1-L4 vertebral bodies. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the inter-observer reliability and the inter-scan reproducibility on QSM.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 61 subjects (mean age, 55.5±13.7 years) with 244 vertebral bodies were analyzed. Overall, QSM and QCT showed good correlation in the L1-L4 vertebral body, especially in the L3 (R=-0.75). QSM value showed excellent inter-observer reliability (ICC, 0.992, 95% CI: 0.985-0.996) with a mean difference of 0.35 and 95% limits of agreements of within -22.74 to 23.45 ppb, and very good inter-scan reproducibility (ICC, 0.932, 95% CI: 0.886-0.959) with a mean difference of -7.60 ppb and 95% limits of agreements of within of -92.85 to 77.62 ppb.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
QSM in the lumbar vertebra is a reliable and reproducible technique for evaluating bone mineral density.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31143660
doi: 10.21037/qims.2019.04.12
pii: qims-09-04-691
pmc: PMC6511713
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
691-699Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Références
Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2010 Aug;18(3):359-81, ix
pubmed: 21094445
NMR Biomed. 2011 Nov;24(9):1129-36
pubmed: 21387445
Radiology. 2012 Apr;263(1):3-17
pubmed: 22438439
Magn Reson Med. 2013 Feb;69(2):467-76
pubmed: 22488774
Neuroimage. 2012 Sep;62(3):2083-100
pubmed: 22659482
PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e57924
pubmed: 23555565
Int J Endocrinol. 2013;2013:895474
pubmed: 23606843
Eur Radiol. 2013 Dec;23(12):3432-9
pubmed: 23812246
Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):496-505
pubmed: 24126366
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Nov;72(5):1444-59
pubmed: 24259479
Radiology. 2014 Apr;271(1):183-92
pubmed: 24475808
J Clin Densitom. 2014 Oct-Dec;17(4):438-48
pubmed: 24880494
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Aug;74(2):564-70
pubmed: 25137340
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Oct;74(4):945-52
pubmed: 25263499
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Jul;42(1):23-41
pubmed: 25270052
IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2015 Feb;34(2):531-40
pubmed: 25312917
Eur Radiol. 2015 Mar;25(3):710-8
pubmed: 25361824
Invest Radiol. 2015 Aug;50(8):522-30
pubmed: 25900085
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Dec;42(6):1592-600
pubmed: 25960320
Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016 Feb;67(1):28-40
pubmed: 26105503
Med Phys. 2016 Jul;43(7):4174
pubmed: 27370137
NMR Biomed. 2017 Apr;30(4):null
pubmed: 27434134
Brain. 2017 Jan;140(1):118-131
pubmed: 27836833
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Nov;78(5):1933-1943
pubmed: 28097689
Magn Reson Med. 2018 Jan;79(1):121-128
pubmed: 28261863
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2017 Oct;46(4):951-971
pubmed: 28295954
Eur Radiol. 2018 Dec;28(12):5027-5034
pubmed: 29948078
Magn Reson Med. 1997 Apr;37(4):494-500
pubmed: 9094070