Impact of measurement method on interobserver variability of apparent diffusion coefficient of lesions in prostate MRI.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
01
10
2021
accepted:
09
05
2022
entrez:
23
5
2022
pubmed:
24
5
2022
medline:
26
5
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To compare the inter-observer variability of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of prostate lesions measured by 2D-region of interest (ROI) with and without specific measurement instruction. Forty lesions in 40 patients who underwent prostate MR followed by targeted prostate biopsy were evaluated. A multi-reader study (10 readers) was performed to assess the agreement of ADC values between 2D-ROI without specific instruction and 2D-ROI with specific instruction to place a 9-pixel size 2D-ROI covering the lowest ADC area. The computer script generated multiple overlapping 9-pixel 2D-ROIs within a 3D-ROI encompassing the entire lesion placed by a single reader. The lowest mean ADC values from each 2D-small-ROI were used as reference values. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the Bland-Altman plot. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was assessed between ADC values measured by 10 readers and the computer-calculated reference values. Ten lesions were benign, 6 were Gleason score 6 prostate carcinoma (PCa), and 24 were clinically significant PCa. The mean±SD ADC reference value by 9-pixel-ROI was 733 ± 186 (10-6 mm2/s). The 95% limits of agreement of ADC values among readers were better with specific instruction (±112) than those without (±205). ICC between reader-measured ADC values and computer-calculated reference values ranged from 0.736-0.949 with specific instruction and 0.349-0.919 without specific instruction. Interobserver agreement of ADC values can be improved by indicating a measurement method (use of a specific ROI size covering the lowest ADC area).
Identifiants
pubmed: 35604891
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268829
pii: PONE-D-21-31701
pmc: PMC9126398
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0268829Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur Radiol. 2019 May;29(5):2243-2245
pubmed: 30488105
Abdom Imaging. 2015 Oct;40(8):3214-21
pubmed: 26156619
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):41-9
pubmed: 26361169
Eur Radiol. 2020 Dec;30(12):6582-6592
pubmed: 32594208
Eur Urol Oncol. 2020 Aug;3(4):489-497
pubmed: 31412009
Radiology. 2014 Apr;271(1):143-52
pubmed: 24475824
Acad Radiol. 2022 Aug;29(8):1159-1168
pubmed: 34598869
Eur Urol. 2019 Sep;76(3):340-351
pubmed: 30898406
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2020 Jul;215(1):133-141
pubmed: 32160050
Radiology. 2008 Dec;249(3):900-8
pubmed: 19011187
Radiology. 2014 Feb;270(2):454-63
pubmed: 24471390
Radiology. 2008 Nov;249(2):624-30
pubmed: 18936317
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Jan;212(1):109-116
pubmed: 30383404
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Jan;210(1):113-117
pubmed: 29045185
Eur Urol Oncol. 2018 May;1(1):29-36
pubmed: 31100225
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Mar;202(3):W247-53
pubmed: 24555621
Med Phys. 2021 Nov;48(11):6889-6900
pubmed: 34418108
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Sep;203(3):W287-94
pubmed: 25148186
Diagn Interv Radiol. 2013 Nov-Dec;19(6):433-7
pubmed: 24004973
J Digit Imaging. 2019 Aug;32(4):571-581
pubmed: 31089974
Clin Cancer Res. 2014 Jul 15;20(14):3705-11
pubmed: 24850842
Radiology. 2017 Apr;283(1):119-129
pubmed: 27783538
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020 Dec;45(12):3951-3960
pubmed: 32185445
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 Sep;42(9):2340-2345
pubmed: 28396920
Eur Urol. 2016 Jan;69(1):16-40
pubmed: 26427566