Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal-Journal De L Association Canadienne Des Radiologistes最新文献

Purpose: To assess and compare intrareader and interreader reproducibility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) diagnosis of female genital anomalies (FGAs) using the American Society for Reproductive Medicine-Mullerian anomalies classification 2021 (ASRM-MAC 2021) and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology-European Society for Gynecological Endoscopy (ESHRE-ESGE) 2016 classification. Methods: In this retrospective study, we searched our electronic MRI database from April 2021 to September 2023, selecting MRI studies with FGAs. Seventy-six consecutive studies were included and reviewed by 4 independent radiologists using both classifications. Studies were re-evaluated after 1 month. Reproducibility was assessed using kappa (κ) scores with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Intrareader agreement for MRI diagnosis of FGAs was substantial to excellent, with κ scores ranging from 0.684 (95% CI, 0.534-0.834) to 0.985 (95% CI, 0.963-1.01) using the ASRM-MAC 2021 and from 0.743 (95% CI, 0.621-0.865) to 0.846 (95% CI, 0.719-0.973) using the ESHRE-ESGE 2016 classification. Pairwise interreader agreement was higher with the ASRM-MAC 2021, ranging from moderate (κ = 0.491; 95% CI, 0.341-0.642) to substantial (κ = 0.709; 95% CI, 0.597-0.821), compared to the ESHRE-ESGE 2016 classification, with weak (κ = 0.080; 95% CI, 0.068-0.228) to moderate (κ = 0.511; 95% CI, 0.344-0.678) agreement. Overall interreader agreement was moderate for both classifications (κ = 0.599; 95% CI, 0.562-0.638 for ASRM-MAC 2021 and κ = 0.429; 95% CI, 0.396-0.463 for ESHRE-ESGE 2016 classification), but with significant differences (non-overlapping CIs). Conclusion: The intrareader reproducibility was high for both classifications, whereas the interreader reproducibility was higher using the ASRM-MAC 2021, highlighting the impact of classification criteria on the reproducibility of MRI diagnosis of FGAs.

Purpose: Fractal analysis is a mathematical tool which allows the evaluation of complex microstructural features within materials that cannot be expressed in traditional geometric terms. The purpose of this study is to quantify the differences in polymethylmethacrylate intravertebral cement spatial distribution patterns following vertebroplasty using fractal analysis through the examination of osteoporotic and malignant compression fractures. Methods: Frontal and lateral post-vertebroplasty radiographs were evaluated from 29 patients with osteoporotic and malignant compression fractures who underwent vertebroplasty. The individually treated vertebra were divided into osteoporotic (n = 35) and malignant groups (n = 41). Images underwent segmentation, thresholding, and binarization prior to fractal analysis. Fractal dimension and lacunarity values were derived from the region of interest in treated vertebrae using the "box-counting" and "gliding-box" techniques respectively using ImageJ. The mean values of both parameters were compared between the 2 groups. Results: The mean fractal dimension was significantly higher in the malignant vertebral compression fracture group (1.53 ± 0.08) compared to the osteoporotic group (1.34 ± 0.17; P < .001). Similarly, mean lacunarity values were significantly higher in the malignant fracture group (0.50 ± 0.09) compared to the osteoporotic group (0.37 ± 0.10; P < .001). Conclusions: Fractal dimension and lacunarity values of cement spatial distribution patterns obtained from the post-vertebroplasty radiographs can differentiate between benign osteoporotic and malignant vertebral compression fractures. This novel technique may be useful for evaluating cement spatial distribution patterns in spine augmentation procedures, although further research is warranted in this area.

Rationale and Objectives: Fat quantification accuracy using a commercial single-voxel high speed T₂-corrected multi-echo (HISTO) technique and its robustness to R₂* variations at 3.0 T, such as those introduced by iron in liver, has not been fully established. This study evaluated HISTO at 3.0 T and sought to reproduce results at 1.5 T. Methods: Phantoms were prepared with a range of fat content and R₂*. Data were acquired at 1.5 T and 3.0 T, using HISTO and a Dixon technique. Fat quantification accuracy was evaluated as a function of R₂*. The patient study included 239 consecutive patients. Data were acquired at 1.5 T or 3.0 T, using HISTO and Dixon techniques. The techniques were compared using Bland-Altman plots. Bias significance was evaluated using a one-sample t-test. Results: In phantoms, HISTO was accurate within 10% up to a R₂* of 100 s^-1 at both field strengths, while Dixon was accurate within 10% where R₂* was accurately quantified (up to 350 s^-1 at 1.5 T, and 550 s^-1 at 3.0 T). In patients, where R₂* was <100 s^-1, fat quantification from both techniques agreed at 1.5 T (P = .71), but not at 3.0 T (P = .007), with a bias <1%. Conclusion: Results suggest that HISTO is reliable when R₂* is <100 s^-1, corresponding to patients with at most mild liver iron overload, and that it should be used with caution when R₂* is >100 s^-1. Dixon should be preferred for hepatic fat quantification due to its robustness to R₂* variations.

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Spine Expert Panel is made up of physicians from the disciplines of radiology, emergency medicine, neurology, neurosurgery, physiatry, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 10 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 23 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 22 recommendation statements across the 8 scenarios (one scenario points to the CAR Trauma Referral Guideline and one scenario points to the CAR Musculoskeletal Guideline). This guideline presents the methods of development and the referral recommendations for myelopathy, suspected spinal infection, possible atlanto-axial instability (non-traumatic), axial pain (non-traumatic), radicular pain (non-traumatic), cauda equina syndrome, suspected spinal tumour, and suspected compression fracture. Spondyloarthropathies and spine trauma point to other CAR Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guidelines, Musculoskeletal and Trauma, respectively.