PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 1, 2024Radiology18 citations

Precision and Test-Retest Repeatability of Stiffness Measurement with MR Elastography: A Multicenter Phantom Study

View Full Paper
EOEfe OzkayaIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiPKPaul KennedyBoston Scientific (United States)JCJun ChenNanjing Drum Tower Hospital

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

Background MR elastography (MRE) has been shown to have excellent performance for noninvasive liver fibrosis staging. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the precision and test-retest repeatability of stiffness measurement with MRE in the multicenter setting. Purpose To determine the precision and test-retest repeatability of stiffness measurement with MRE across multiple centers using the same phantoms. Materials and Methods In this study, three cylindrical phantoms made of polyvinyl chloride gel mimicking different degrees of liver stiffness in humans (phantoms 1–3: soft, medium, and hard stiffness, respectively) were evaluated. Between January 2021 and January 2022, phantoms were circulated between five different centers and scanned with 10 MRE-equipped clinical 1.5-T and 3-T systems from three major vendors, using two-dimensional (2D) gradient-recalled echo (GRE) imaging and/or 2D spin-echo (SE) echo-planar imaging (EPI). Similar MRE acquisition parameters, hardware, and reconstruction algorithms were used at each center. Mean stiffness was measured by a single observer for each phantom and acquisition on a single section. Stiffness measurement precision and same-session test-retest repeatability were assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and the repeatability coefficient (RC), respectively. Results The mean precision represented by the CV was 5.8% (95% CI: 3.8, 7.7) for all phantoms and both sequences combined. For all phantoms, 2D GRE achieved a CV of 4.5% (95% CI: 3.3, 5.7) whereas 2D SE EPI achieved a CV of 7.8% (95% CI: 3.1, 12.6). The mean RC of stiffness measurement was 5.8% (95% CI: 3.7, 7.8) for all phantoms and both sequences combined, 4.9% (95% CI: 2.7, 7.0) for 2D GRE, and 7.0% (95% CI: 2.9, 11.2) for 2D SE EPI (all phantoms). Conclusion MRE had excellent in vitro precision and same-session test-retest repeatability in the multicenter setting when similar imaging protocols, hardware, and reconstruction algorithms were used. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tang in this issue.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Ozkaya et al. (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68e6c03bb6db64358763fd09https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.233136
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Accuracy and test-retest repeatability of stiffness measurement with MR Elastography: a multi-center phantom study2024
  2. 2A Comparative Study of Three Systems for Liver Magnetic Resonance Elastography2024 · 4 citations
  3. 3Test-Retest Repeatability and Cross-Platform Reproducibility of Optimized 2D MRE and 3D MRE Liver Protocols with Automated Analysis2024
  4. 4Dependence of Magnetic Resonance Elastography‐Derived Stiffness Values on Selected Imaging Parameters2026
  5. 5Reproducibility of 3.0 T single-frequency cardiac MR elastography for quantification of left ventricular myocardial stiffness2026