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.citation.issue1078
dc.citation.volume90
dc.contributor.authorSathler Bretas, Elisa Almeida [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorTorres, Ulysses S.
dc.contributor.authorTorres, Lucas Rios
dc.contributor.authorBekhor, Daniel [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorSaito Filho, Celso Fernando [UNIFESP]
dc.contributor.authorRacy, Douglas Jorge
dc.contributor.authorFaggioni, Lorenzo
dc.contributor.authorD'Ippolito, Giuseppe [UNIFESP]
dc.coverageLondon
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-17T14:03:30Z
dc.date.available2020-07-17T14:03:30Z
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.en
dc.description.affiliationUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationGrp Fleury, Dept Radiol, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationHosp Beneficencia Portuguesa, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.affiliationUniv Hosp Pisa, Dept Diagnost & Intervent Radiol, Pisa, Italy
dc.description.affiliationUnifespUniv Fed Sao Paulo, Dept Imaging, Sao Paulo, Brazil
dc.description.sourceWeb of Science
dc.format.extent-
dc.identifierhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20170214
dc.identifier.citationBritish Journal Of Radiology. London, v. 90, n. 1078, p. -, 2017.
dc.identifier.doi10.1259/bjr.20170214
dc.identifier.fileWOS000411905800014.pdf
dc.identifier.issn0007-1285
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.unifesp.br/handle/11600/55443
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000411905800014
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBritish Inst Radiology
dc.relation.ispartofBritish Journal Of Radiology
dc.rightsAcesso aberto
dc.titleIs liver perfusion CT reproducible? A study on intra-and interobserver agreement of normal hepatic haemodynamic parameters obtained with two different software packagesen
dc.typeArtigo
Arquivos
Coleções
EPM - Artigos