Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra- and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages.
Bretas, Elisa Almeida Sathler; Torres, Ulysses S; Torres, Lucas Rios; Bekhor, Daniel; Saito Filho, Celso Fernando; Racy, Douglas Jorge; Faggioni, Lorenzo; D'Ippolito, Giuseppe.
Afiliación
  • Bretas EAS; 1 Department of Imaging, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Torres US; 2 Department of Radiology, Grupo Fleury, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Torres LR; 2 Department of Radiology, Grupo Fleury, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Bekhor D; 2 Department of Radiology, Grupo Fleury, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Saito Filho CF; 3 Department of Imaging, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Racy DJ; 1 Department of Imaging, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • Faggioni L; 1 Department of Imaging, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
  • D'Ippolito G; 3 Department of Imaging, Hospital Beneficência Portuguesa, São Paulo, Brazil.
Br J Radiol ; 90(1078): 20170214, 2017 Oct.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28830195
ABSTRACT

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.
Asunto(s)

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Programas Informáticos / Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Imagen de Perfusión / Hemodinámica / Hígado Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Br J Radiol Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Programas Informáticos / Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X / Imagen de Perfusión / Hemodinámica / Hígado Tipo de estudio: Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies Límite: Adult / Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Br J Radiol Año: 2017 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil
...