Reproducibility of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in Renal Cell Carcinoma. Issue 37 (September 2015)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Wang, Haiyi; Su, Zihua; Ye, Huiyi; Xu, Xiao; Sun, Zhipeng; Li, Lu; Duan, Feixue; Song, Yuanyuan; Lambrou, Tryphon; Ma, Lin; Roviello., Giandomenico
• Is Part Of: Medicine. Volume 94:Issue 37(2015)
• Publication Date: 2015-09
• Subjects: Medicine -- Periodicals; Medicine -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Périodiques; Geneeskunde; Medicine; Periodicals; Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000001529
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0025-7974

Abstract

<abstract> <title> <x xml:space="preserve">Abstract</x> </title> <sec> <title>Abstract</title> <p>The objective of this study was to investigate the intra- and interobserver as well as scan–rescan reproducibility of quantitative parameters of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI).</p> <p>A total of 21 patients with clear cell RCCs (17 men, 4 woman; age 37–69 years, mean age 54.6 years, mean size, 5.0 ± 2.2 cm) were prospectively recruited from September 2012 to November 2012. Patients underwent paired DCE-MRI studies on a 3.0 T MR system with an interval of 48 to 72 hours. The extended-Tofts model and population-based arterial input function were used to calculate kinetic parameters. Three observers defined the 2-dimensional whole-tumor region of interest at the slice with the maximum diameter of the RCC. Intraobserver and scan–rescan differences were assessed using paired <italic>t</italic> tests, whereas interobserver differences using two-way analysis of variance. Intra- and interobserver reproducibility and scan–rescan reproducibility were evaluated using within-subject coefficient of variation (wCoV) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).</p> <p>There were no significant intra-, interobserver, or scan–rescan differences in parameters (all <italic>P</italic> > 0.05). All ICCs for intra- and interobserver agreements were >0.75 (<italic>P</italic> < 0.05), whereas the scan–rescan agreement was moderate to good; <italic>V</italic><sub>e</sub> (0.764, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.378–0.925) and <italic>K</italic><sub>ep</sub> (0.906, 95% CI: 0.710–0.972) had higher ICC than <italic>K</italic><sup>trans</sup> (0.686; 95% CI: 0.212–0.898) and <italic>V</italic><sub>p</sub> (0.657; 95% CI: 0.164–0.888). In intra- and interobserver variability analyses, all parameters except <italic>V</italic><sub>p</sub> had low wCoV values. <italic>K</italic><sup>trans</sup> and <italic>V</italic><sub>e</sub> had slightly lower intraobserver wCoV (1.2% and 0.9%) compared with <italic>K</italic><sub>ep</sub> (3.7%), whereas all 3 of these parameters had similar interobserver wCoV values (2.5%, 3.1%, and 2.9%, respectively). Regarding scan–rescan variability, <italic>K</italic><sup>trans</sup> and <italic>K</italic><sub>ep</sub> showed slightly higher variation (15.6% and 15.4%) than <italic>V</italic><sub>e</sub> (10.1%). <italic>V</italic><sub>p</sub> had the largest wCoV in all variability analyses (all >30%).</p> <p>DCE-MRI demonstrated good intra- and interobserver reproducibility and moderate to good scan–rescan performance in the assessment of RCC using <italic>K</italic><sup>trans</sup>, <italic>K</italic><sub>ep</sub>, and <italic>V</italic><sub>e</sub> as parameters under noncontinuous scanning mode. <italic>V</italic><sub>p</sub> showed poor reproducibility, and thus may not be suitable for this scanning protocol.</p> </sec> </abstract>