Is liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packages

Página do item simplificado
dc.contributorSistema FMUSP-HC: Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP) e Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP
dc.contributor.authorBRETAS, Elisa Almeida Sathler
dc.contributor.authorTORRES, Ulysses S.
dc.contributor.authorTORRES, Lucas Rios
dc.contributor.authorBEKHOR, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorSAITO FILHO, Celso Fernando
dc.contributor.authorRACY, Douglas Jorge
dc.contributor.authorFAGGIONI, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.authorD'IPPOLITO, Giuseppe
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-30T13:39:07Z
dc.date.available2019-05-30T13:39:07Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.description.abstractObjective: 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.eng
dc.description.indexMEDLINEeng
dc.identifier.citationBRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, v.90, n.1078, article ID 20170214, 8p, 2017
dc.identifier.doi10.1259/bjr.20170214
dc.identifier.eissn1748-880X
dc.identifier.issn0007-1285
dc.identifier.urihttps://observatorio.fm.usp.br/handle/OPI/31853
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBRITISH INST RADIOLOGYeng
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal of Radiology
dc.rightsrestrictedAccesseng
dc.rights.holderCopyright BRITISH INST RADIOLOGYeng
dc.subject.otherhepatocellular-carcinomaeng
dc.subject.othercomputed-tomographyeng
dc.subject.otherlung-tumorseng
dc.subject.othervariabilityeng
dc.subject.othercancereng
dc.subject.otherquantificationeng
dc.subject.otherprotocolseng
dc.subject.otherdiseaseeng
dc.subject.othervalueseng
dc.subject.othermodeleng
dc.subject.wosRadiology, Nuclear Medicine & Medical Imagingeng
dc.titleIs liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packageseng
dc.typearticleeng
dc.type.categoryoriginal articleeng
dc.type.versionpublishedVersioneng
dspace.entity.typePublication
hcfmusp.affiliation.countryItália
hcfmusp.affiliation.countryisoit
hcfmusp.author.externalBRETAS, Elisa Almeida Sathler:Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Grp Fleury, Dept Radiol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalTORRES, Lucas Rios:Grp Fleury, Dept Radiol, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Hosp Beneficencia Portuguesa, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalBEKHOR, Daniel:Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalSAITO FILHO, Celso Fernando:Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalRACY, Douglas Jorge:Hosp Beneficencia Portuguesa, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.author.externalFAGGIONI, Lorenzo:Univ Hosp Pisa, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Pisa, Italy
hcfmusp.author.externalD'IPPOLITO, Giuseppe:Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Grp Fleury, Dept Radiol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
hcfmusp.citation.scopus9
hcfmusp.contributor.author-fmusphcULYSSES DOS SANTOS TORRES
hcfmusp.description.articlenumber20170214
hcfmusp.description.issue1078
hcfmusp.description.volume90
hcfmusp.origemWOS
hcfmusp.origem.pubmed28830195
hcfmusp.origem.scopus2-s2.0-85030749150
hcfmusp.origem.wosWOS:000411905800014
hcfmusp.publisher.cityLONDONeng
hcfmusp.publisher.countryENGLANDeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBader TR, 1998, RADIOLOGY, V209, P129, DOI 10.1148/radiology.209.1.9769823eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBankier AA, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V257, P14, DOI 10.1148/radiol.10100252eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBevilacqua A, 2014, ACAD RADIOL, V21, P1416, DOI 10.1016/j.acra.2014.06.005eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceBlomley M, 1997, FUNCTIONAL COMPUTED, P47eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDeak PD, 2010, RADIOLOGY, V257, P158, DOI 10.1148/radiol.10100047eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDi Leo G, 2015, PEDIATR RADIOL, V45, P32, DOI 10.1007/s00247-014-3081-2eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceDighe S, 2013, RADIOLOGY, V268, P400, DOI 10.1148/radiol.13112460eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceFischer MA, 2017, EUR RADIOL, V27, P1074, DOI 10.1007/s00330-016-4432-1eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGarcia-Figueiras R, 2013, AM J ROENTGENOL, V200, P8, DOI 10.2214/AJR.11.8476eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGoh V, 2007, RADIOLOGY, V242, P777, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2423060279eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGordic S, 2016, RADIOLOGY, V280, P78, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2015151560eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceGuggenberger R, 2012, SKELETAL RADIOL, V41, P971, DOI 10.1007/s00256-011-1310-4eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceHatwell C, 2014, HEPATOB PANCREAT DIS, V13, P301, DOI 10.1016/S1499-3872(14)60043-6eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceIppolito D, 2012, EUR RADIOL, V22, P803, DOI 10.1007/s00330-011-2307-zeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceJensen NKG, 2013, ACAD RADIOL, V20, P414, DOI 10.1016/j.acra.2012.09.027eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKanda T, 2012, EUR J RADIOL, V81, P2470, DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.10.009eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKanda T, 2012, EUR J RADIOL, V81, P2075, DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2011.07.003eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKaufmann S, 2015, EUR J RADIOL, V84, P1029, DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2015.02.020eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceKim SH, 2014, RADIOLOGY, V272, P321, DOI 10.1148/radiol.14130091eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLeggett DAC, 1997, RADIOLOGY, V205, P716, DOI 10.1148/radiology.205.3.9393526eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceLiapi E, 2015, J AM COLL RADIOL, V12, P111, DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.10.007eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMaterne R, 2000, CLIN SCI, V99, P517, DOI 10.1042/CS20000080eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMcCollough CH, 2009, AM J ROENTGENOL, V193, P28, DOI 10.2214/AJR.09.2754eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceMyles PS, 2007, BRIT J ANAESTH, V99, P309, DOI 10.1093/bja/aem214eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNg CS, 2012, J COMPUT ASSIST TOMO, V36, P388, DOI 10.1097/RCT.0b013e318256b1e2eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceNg CS, 2011, AM J ROENTGENOL, V197, P113, DOI 10.2214/AJR.10.5404eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceO'Connor JPB, 2011, BRIT J RADIOL, V84, pS112, DOI 10.1259/bjr/55166688eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceObuchowski NA, 2015, STAT METHODS MED RES, V24, P68, DOI 10.1177/0962280214537390eng
hcfmusp.relation.referencePetralia G, 2012, RADIOLOGY, V265, P448, DOI 10.1148/radiol.12111232eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceShiraishi J, 2009, RADIOLOGY, V253, P822, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2533081632eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSHROUT PE, 1979, PSYCHOL BULL, V86, P420, DOI 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSkornitzke S, 2015, BRIT J RADIOL, V88, DOI 10.1259/bjr.20140683eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSousa João Paulo Lira Barros Almeida de, 2012, Radiol Bras, V45, P39, DOI 10.1590/S0100-39842012000100010eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSu TH, 2017, J COMPUT ASSIST TOMO, V41, P315, DOI 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000511eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceSullivan DC, 2015, RADIOLOGY, V277, P813, DOI 10.1148/radiol.2015142202eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceTopcuoglu OM, 2016, DIAGN INTERV RADIOL, V22, P495, DOI 10.5152/dir.2016.16612eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceVan Beers BE, 2001, AM J ROENTGENOL, V176, P667, DOI 10.2214/ajr.176.3.1760667eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceWang X, 2013, EUR J RADIOL, V82, P220, DOI 10.1016/j.ejrad.2012.09.015eng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceYang HF, 2010, EUR RADIOL, V20, P1424, DOI 10.1007/s00330-009-1693-yeng
hcfmusp.relation.referenceZussman BM, 2011, AM J ROENTGENOL, V197, P468, DOI 10.2214/AJR.10.6058eng
hcfmusp.scopus.lastupdate2024-05-10
relation.isAuthorOfPublication3febb672-937e-42e2-93eb-4e7e0ae83be5
relation.isAuthorOfPublication.latestForDiscovery3febb672-937e-42e2-93eb-4e7e0ae83be5
Arquivos
Pacote Original
Agora exibindo 1 - 1 de 1
Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
Nome:
art_BRETAS_Is_liver_perfusion_CT_reproducible_A_study_on_2017.PDF
Tamanho:
418.3 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descrição:
publishedVersion (English)
Baixar
Coleções
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - FM/Outros
Artigos e Materiais de Revistas Científicas - LIM/21