% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@ARTICLE{Zhang:276912,
author = {K. S. Zhang$^*$ and C. J. O. Neelsen$^*$ and M.
Wennmann$^*$ and P. A. Glemser$^*$ and T. Hielscher$^*$ and
V. Weru$^*$ and M. Görtz$^*$ and V. Schütz and A.
Stenzinger and M. Hohenfellner and H.-P. Schlemmer$^*$ and
D. Bonekamp$^*$},
title = {{S}ame-day repeatability and {B}etween-{S}equence
reproducibility of {M}ean {ADC} in {PI}-{RADS} lesions.},
journal = {European journal of radiology},
volume = {165},
issn = {0720-048x},
address = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
publisher = {Elsevier Science},
reportid = {DKFZ-2023-01205},
pages = {110898},
year = {2023},
note = {#EA:E010#LA:E010#},
abstract = {This study aimed to assess repeatability after
repositioning (inter-scan), intra-rater, inter-rater and
inter-sequence variability of mean apparent diffusion
coefficient (ADC) measurements in MRI-detected prostate
lesions.Forty-three patients with suspicion for prostate
cancer were included and received a clinical prostate
bi-/multiparametric MRI examination with repeat scans of the
T2-weighted and two DWI-weighted sequences (ssEPI and
rsEPI). Two raters (R1 and R2) performed single-slice, 2D
regions of interest (2D-ROIs) and 3D-segmentation-ROIs
(3D-ROIs). Mean bias, corresponding limits of agreement
(LoA), mean absolute difference, within-subject coefficient
of variation (CoV) and repeatability/reproducibility
coefficient (RC/RDC) were calculated. Bradley $\&$ Blackwood
test was used for variance comparison. Linear mixed models
(LMM) were used to account for multiple lesions per
patient.Inter-scan repeatability, intra-rater and
inter-sequence reproducibility analysis of ADC showed no
significant bias. 3D-ROIs demonstrated significantly less
variability than 2D-ROIs (p < 0.01). Inter-rater comparison
demonstrated small significant systematic bias of 57 × 10-6
mm2/s for 3D-ROIs (p < 0.001). Intra-rater RC, with the
lowest variation, was 145 and 189 × 10-6 mm2/s for 3D- and
2D-ROIs, respectively. For 3D-ROIs of ssEPI, RCs and RDCs
were 190-198 × 10-6 mm2/s for inter-scan, inter-rater and
inter-sequence variation. No significant differences were
found for inter-scan, inter-rater and inter-sequence
variability.In a single-scanner setting, single-slice ADC
measurements showed considerable variation, which may be
lowered using 3D-ROIs. For 3D-ROIs, we propose a cut-off of
∼ 200 × 10-6 mm2/s for differences introduced by
repositioning, rater or sequence effects. The results
suggest that follow-up measurements should be possible by
different raters or sequences.},
keywords = {ADC (Other) / Apparent diffusion coefficient (Other) /
Prostate (Other) / Repeatability (Other) / Reproducibility
(Other) / Retest (Other) / Stability (Other) / Test (Other)},
cin = {E010 / C060 / E250 / HD01},
ddc = {610},
cid = {I:(DE-He78)E010-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)C060-20160331 /
I:(DE-He78)E250-20160331 / I:(DE-He78)HD01-20160331},
pnm = {315 - Bildgebung und Radioonkologie (POF4-315)},
pid = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-315},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
pubmed = {pmid:37331287},
doi = {10.1016/j.ejrad.2023.110898},
url = {https://inrepo02.dkfz.de/record/276912},
}