Influence of Gadolinium-based Contrast Media and Inter-reader Variation on the Estimation of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) Parameters in Breast MR Imaging.
Barbara J Fueger, Raoul Varga, Panagiotis Kapetas, Nina Pötsch, Thomas H Helbich, Pascal A T Baltzer, Paola Clauser
{"title":"Influence of Gadolinium-based Contrast Media and Inter-reader Variation on the Estimation of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) Parameters in Breast MR Imaging.","authors":"Barbara J Fueger, Raoul Varga, Panagiotis Kapetas, Nina Pötsch, Thomas H Helbich, Pascal A T Baltzer, Paola Clauser","doi":"10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) may affect apparent diffusion coefficient measurements on diffusion-weighted imaging. We aimed at investigating the effect of GBCM and inter-reader variation on intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters in breast lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 89 patients referred to 3T breast MRI with at least one histologically verified lesion were included. IVIM data were acquired using a single-shot echo planar imaging sequence before and after GBCM administration. D (true diffusion coefficient), D* (pseudo-diffusion coefficient) and f (perfusion fraction) were calculated and measured by two readers (R1, R2). Inter-reader and intra-reader agreements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>D was comparable before and after GBCM administration and between readers. D* and f decreased after GBCM administration and showed a lower agreement between readers. Intra-reader agreement before and after GBCM administration was almost perfect for D for both R1 and R2 (ICC 0.955 and 0.887). The intra-reader agreement was substantial to moderate for D* (ICC R1 0.708, R2 0.583) and moderate for f (ICC R1 0.529 and R2 0.425). Inter-reader agreement before GBCM administration was almost perfect for D (ICC 0.905), substantial for D* (ICC 0.733), and moderate for f (ICC 0.404); after contrast media administration, it was almost perfect for D (ICC 0.876) and substantial for D* (ICC 0.654) and f (ICC 0.606). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant bias.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Administration of GBCM seems to have a stronger effect on D* and f values than on D values. This should be considered when applying IVIM in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":94126,"journal":{"name":"Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2023-0131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: Gadolinium-based contrast media (GBCM) may affect apparent diffusion coefficient measurements on diffusion-weighted imaging. We aimed at investigating the effect of GBCM and inter-reader variation on intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters in breast lesions.
Methods: A total of 89 patients referred to 3T breast MRI with at least one histologically verified lesion were included. IVIM data were acquired using a single-shot echo planar imaging sequence before and after GBCM administration. D (true diffusion coefficient), D* (pseudo-diffusion coefficient) and f (perfusion fraction) were calculated and measured by two readers (R1, R2). Inter-reader and intra-reader agreements were assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots.
Results: D was comparable before and after GBCM administration and between readers. D* and f decreased after GBCM administration and showed a lower agreement between readers. Intra-reader agreement before and after GBCM administration was almost perfect for D for both R1 and R2 (ICC 0.955 and 0.887). The intra-reader agreement was substantial to moderate for D* (ICC R1 0.708, R2 0.583) and moderate for f (ICC R1 0.529 and R2 0.425). Inter-reader agreement before GBCM administration was almost perfect for D (ICC 0.905), substantial for D* (ICC 0.733), and moderate for f (ICC 0.404); after contrast media administration, it was almost perfect for D (ICC 0.876) and substantial for D* (ICC 0.654) and f (ICC 0.606). Bland-Altman plots revealed no significant bias.
Conclusion: Administration of GBCM seems to have a stronger effect on D* and f values than on D values. This should be considered when applying IVIM in clinical practice.