Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Outros Autores: | , , , , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP |
Texto Completo: | https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/55443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170214 |
Resumo: | Objective: To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of perfusion CT parameters in normal livers by using two different software packages. Methods: This retrospective study was based on 78 liver perfusion CT examinations acquired for detecting suspected liver metastasis. Patients with any morphological or functional hepatic abnormalities were excluded. The final analysis included 37 patients (59.7 +/- 14.9 y). Two readers (1 and 2) independently measured perfusion parameters using different software packages from two major manufacturers (A and B). Arterial perfusion (AP) and portal perfusion (PP) were determined using the dual-input vascular one-compartmental model. Inter-reader agreement for each package and intrareader agreement between both packages were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman statistics. Results: Inter-reader agreement was substantial for AP using software A (ICC = 0.82) and B (ICC = 0.85-0.86), fair for PP using software A (ICC = 0.44) and fair to moderate for PP using software B (ICC = 0.56-0.77). Intrareader agreement between software A and B ranged from slight to moderate (ICC = 0.32-0.62) for readers 1 and 2 considering the AP parameters, and from fair to moderate (ICC = 0.40-0.69) for readers 1 and 2 considering the PP parameters. Conclusion: At best there was only moderate agreement between both software packages, resulting in some uncertainty and suboptimal reproducibility. Advances in knowledge: Software-dependent factors may contribute to variance in perfusion measurements, demanding further technical improvements. AP measurements seem to be the most reproducible parameter to be adopted when evaluating liver perfusion CT. |
id |
UFSP_3a49098578789509032bf24c73efe946 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:repositorio.unifesp.br:11600/55443 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP |
repository_id_str |
3465 |
spelling |
Sathler Bretas, Elisa Almeida [UNIFESP]Torres, Ulysses S.Torres, Lucas RiosBekhor, Daniel [UNIFESP]Saito Filho, Celso Fernando [UNIFESP]Racy, Douglas JorgeFaggioni, LorenzoD'Ippolito, Giuseppe [UNIFESP]2020-07-17T14:03:30Z2020-07-17T14:03:30Z2017British Journal Of Radiology. London, v. 90, n. 1078, p. -, 2017.0007-1285https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/55443http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170214WOS000411905800014.pdf10.1259/bjr.20170214WOS:000411905800014Objective: To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of perfusion CT parameters in normal livers by using two different software packages. Methods: This retrospective study was based on 78 liver perfusion CT examinations acquired for detecting suspected liver metastasis. Patients with any morphological or functional hepatic abnormalities were excluded. The final analysis included 37 patients (59.7 +/- 14.9 y). Two readers (1 and 2) independently measured perfusion parameters using different software packages from two major manufacturers (A and B). Arterial perfusion (AP) and portal perfusion (PP) were determined using the dual-input vascular one-compartmental model. Inter-reader agreement for each package and intrareader agreement between both packages were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman statistics. Results: Inter-reader agreement was substantial for AP using software A (ICC = 0.82) and B (ICC = 0.85-0.86), fair for PP using software A (ICC = 0.44) and fair to moderate for PP using software B (ICC = 0.56-0.77). Intrareader agreement between software A and B ranged from slight to moderate (ICC = 0.32-0.62) for readers 1 and 2 considering the AP parameters, and from fair to moderate (ICC = 0.40-0.69) for readers 1 and 2 considering the PP parameters. Conclusion: At best there was only moderate agreement between both software packages, resulting in some uncertainty and suboptimal reproducibility. Advances in knowledge: Software-dependent factors may contribute to variance in perfusion measurements, demanding further technical improvements. AP measurements seem to be the most reproducible parameter to be adopted when evaluating liver perfusion CT.Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, BrazilGrp Fleury, Dept Radiol, Sao Paulo, BrazilHosp Beneficencia Portuguesa, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, BrazilUniv Hosp Pisa, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Pisa, ItalyUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, BrazilWeb of Science-engBritish Inst RadiologyBritish Journal Of RadiologyIs liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packagesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleLondon901078info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESPinstname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)instacron:UNIFESP11600/554432021-09-30 15:27:01.811metadata only accessoai:repositorio.unifesp.br:11600/55443Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttp://www.repositorio.unifesp.br/oai/requestopendoar:34652023-05-25T12:25:33.650456Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)false |
dc.title.en.fl_str_mv |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
title |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
spellingShingle |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages Sathler Bretas, Elisa Almeida [UNIFESP] |
title_short |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
title_full |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
title_fullStr |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
title_full_unstemmed |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
title_sort |
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages |
author |
Sathler Bretas, Elisa Almeida [UNIFESP] |
author_facet |
Sathler Bretas, Elisa Almeida [UNIFESP] Torres, Ulysses S. Torres, Lucas Rios Bekhor, Daniel [UNIFESP] Saito Filho, Celso Fernando [UNIFESP] Racy, Douglas Jorge Faggioni, Lorenzo D'Ippolito, Giuseppe [UNIFESP] |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
Torres, Ulysses S. Torres, Lucas Rios Bekhor, Daniel [UNIFESP] Saito Filho, Celso Fernando [UNIFESP] Racy, Douglas Jorge Faggioni, Lorenzo D'Ippolito, Giuseppe [UNIFESP] |
author2_role |
author author author author author author author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Sathler Bretas, Elisa Almeida [UNIFESP] Torres, Ulysses S. Torres, Lucas Rios Bekhor, Daniel [UNIFESP] Saito Filho, Celso Fernando [UNIFESP] Racy, Douglas Jorge Faggioni, Lorenzo D'Ippolito, Giuseppe [UNIFESP] |
description |
Objective: To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of perfusion CT parameters in normal livers by using two different software packages. Methods: This retrospective study was based on 78 liver perfusion CT examinations acquired for detecting suspected liver metastasis. Patients with any morphological or functional hepatic abnormalities were excluded. The final analysis included 37 patients (59.7 +/- 14.9 y). Two readers (1 and 2) independently measured perfusion parameters using different software packages from two major manufacturers (A and B). Arterial perfusion (AP) and portal perfusion (PP) were determined using the dual-input vascular one-compartmental model. Inter-reader agreement for each package and intrareader agreement between both packages were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman statistics. Results: Inter-reader agreement was substantial for AP using software A (ICC = 0.82) and B (ICC = 0.85-0.86), fair for PP using software A (ICC = 0.44) and fair to moderate for PP using software B (ICC = 0.56-0.77). Intrareader agreement between software A and B ranged from slight to moderate (ICC = 0.32-0.62) for readers 1 and 2 considering the AP parameters, and from fair to moderate (ICC = 0.40-0.69) for readers 1 and 2 considering the PP parameters. Conclusion: At best there was only moderate agreement between both software packages, resulting in some uncertainty and suboptimal reproducibility. Advances in knowledge: Software-dependent factors may contribute to variance in perfusion measurements, demanding further technical improvements. AP measurements seem to be the most reproducible parameter to be adopted when evaluating liver perfusion CT. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv |
2017 |
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv |
2020-07-17T14:03:30Z |
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv |
2020-07-17T14:03:30Z |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.citation.fl_str_mv |
British Journal Of Radiology. London, v. 90, n. 1078, p. -, 2017. |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/55443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170214 |
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv |
0007-1285 |
dc.identifier.file.none.fl_str_mv |
WOS000411905800014.pdf |
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv |
10.1259/bjr.20170214 |
dc.identifier.wos.none.fl_str_mv |
WOS:000411905800014 |
identifier_str_mv |
British Journal Of Radiology. London, v. 90, n. 1078, p. -, 2017. 0007-1285 WOS000411905800014.pdf 10.1259/bjr.20170214 WOS:000411905800014 |
url |
https://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/55443 http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170214 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.ispartof.none.fl_str_mv |
British Journal Of Radiology |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
- |
dc.coverage.none.fl_str_mv |
London |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
British Inst Radiology |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
British Inst Radiology |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP instname:Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) instacron:UNIFESP |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) |
instacron_str |
UNIFESP |
institution |
UNIFESP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP |
collection |
Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Institucional da UNIFESP - Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1783460289375633408 |