Clinical Feasibility of 5.0 T MRI/MRCP in Characterizing Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Comparison with 3.0 T and MDCT.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Diagnostics Pub Date : 2024-11-02 DOI:10.3390/diagnostics14212457
Huijia Zhao, Qiang Xu, Ruichen Gao, Bohui Yin, Gan Sun, Ke Xue, Yuxin Yang, Enhui Li, Liang Zhu, Feng Feng, Wenming Wu
{"title":"Clinical Feasibility of 5.0 T MRI/MRCP in Characterizing Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Comparison with 3.0 T and MDCT.","authors":"Huijia Zhao, Qiang Xu, Ruichen Gao, Bohui Yin, Gan Sun, Ke Xue, Yuxin Yang, Enhui Li, Liang Zhu, Feng Feng, Wenming Wu","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics14212457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> To assess the feasibility of 5.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in characterizing pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), compared with 3.0 T MRI and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). <b>Methods:</b> Thirty-five patients with PCLs underwent 5.0 T MR alongside 3.0 T MR or MDCT. Two observers measured subjective and objective image quality scores. The consistency of two observers between 5.0 T and 3.0 T was calculated by intraclass correlation coefficients. The characteristics of PCLs and their specific diagnosis, as well as benignity/malignancy, were evaluated across MDCT, 3.0 T, and 5.0 T MRI. <b>Results:</b> The 5.0 T MR demonstrated significantly higher subjective image quality and SNR on T1WI compared to that in 3.0 T MR (<i>p</i> < 0.05). The 5.0 T MRI identified more cyst lesions than the 3.0 T MRI (40 and 32) and MDCT (82 and 56). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions with 5.0 T MRI (75%, 100%, and 91.4%, respectively) surpassed those of 3.0 T MRI and MDCT. The accuracy of the specific diagnosis of PCLs at 5.0 T MRI (80%) was superior to 3.0 T MRI and MDCT. <b>Conclusions:</b> 5.0 T MRI exhibits certain superiority in delineating details of PCLs and in clinical diagnostic accuracy, outperforming MDCT and 3.0 T MRI while maintaining sufficient image quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11545645/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14212457","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of 5.0 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in characterizing pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs), compared with 3.0 T MRI and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Methods: Thirty-five patients with PCLs underwent 5.0 T MR alongside 3.0 T MR or MDCT. Two observers measured subjective and objective image quality scores. The consistency of two observers between 5.0 T and 3.0 T was calculated by intraclass correlation coefficients. The characteristics of PCLs and their specific diagnosis, as well as benignity/malignancy, were evaluated across MDCT, 3.0 T, and 5.0 T MRI. Results: The 5.0 T MR demonstrated significantly higher subjective image quality and SNR on T1WI compared to that in 3.0 T MR (p < 0.05). The 5.0 T MRI identified more cyst lesions than the 3.0 T MRI (40 and 32) and MDCT (82 and 56). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for differentiating benign from malignant lesions with 5.0 T MRI (75%, 100%, and 91.4%, respectively) surpassed those of 3.0 T MRI and MDCT. The accuracy of the specific diagnosis of PCLs at 5.0 T MRI (80%) was superior to 3.0 T MRI and MDCT. Conclusions: 5.0 T MRI exhibits certain superiority in delineating details of PCLs and in clinical diagnostic accuracy, outperforming MDCT and 3.0 T MRI while maintaining sufficient image quality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
5.0 T MRI/MRCP 在确定胰腺囊性病变特征方面的临床可行性:与 3.0 T 和 MDCT 的比较。
目的评估 5.0 T 磁共振成像(MRI)与 3.0 T 磁共振成像和多载体计算机断层扫描(MDCT)相比在确定胰腺囊性病变(PCL)特征方面的可行性。方法35 名 PCL 患者在接受 3.0 T MR 或 MDCT 检查的同时接受了 5.0 T MR 检查。两名观察者测量主观和客观图像质量评分。通过类内相关系数计算两名观察者在 5.0 T 和 3.0 T 之间的一致性。通过 MDCT、3.0 T 和 5.0 T MRI 对 PCL 的特征、具体诊断以及良性/恶性进行了评估。结果:与 3.0 T MR 相比,5.0 T MR 的主观图像质量和 T1WI SNR 明显更高(P < 0.05)。与 3.0 T MRI(40 个和 32 个)和 MDCT(82 个和 56 个)相比,5.0 T MRI 发现了更多的囊肿病灶。5.0 T 磁共振成像区分良性和恶性病变的敏感性、特异性和准确性(分别为 75%、100% 和 91.4%)均超过 3.0 T 磁共振成像和 MDCT。5.0 T 磁共振成像特异性诊断 PCL 的准确率(80%)优于 3.0 T 磁共振成像和 MDCT。结论5.0 T 核磁共振成像在清晰描绘 PCL 的细节和临床诊断准确性方面表现出一定的优势,在保持足够图像质量的同时,优于 MDCT 和 3.0 T 核磁共振成像。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
期刊最新文献
RETRACTED: Monda et al. Left Ventricular Non-Compaction in Children: Aetiology and Diagnostic Criteria. Diagnostics 2024, 14, 115. Compound Heterozygous Variants in the IFT140 Gene Associated with Skeletal Ciliopathies. A Novel Method for 3D Lung Tumor Reconstruction Using Generative Models. Agreement Between Resting Energy Expenditure Predictive Formulas and Indirect Calorimetry in Non-Dialysis Dependent Chronic Kidney Disease. Multi-Scale 3D Cephalometric Landmark Detection Based on Direct Regression with 3D CNN Architectures.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1