Inter- and Intra-Observer Variability and the Effect of Experience in Cine-MRI for Adhesion Detection

Cine-MRI for adhesion detection is a promising novel modality that can help the large group of patients developing pain after abdominal surgery. Few studies into its diagnostic accuracy are available, and none address observer variability. This retrospective study explores the inter- and intra-observer variability, diagnostic accuracy, and the effect of experience. A total of 15 observers with a variety of experience reviewed 61 sagittal cine-MRI slices, placing box annotations with a confidence score at locations suspect for adhesions. Five observers reviewed the slices again one year later. Inter- and intra-observer variability are quantified using Fleiss’ (inter) and Cohen’s (intra) κ and percentage agreement. Diagnostic accuracy is quantified with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis based on a consensus standard. Inter-observer Fleiss’ κ values range from 0.04 to 0.34, showing poor to fair agreement. High general and cine-MRI experience led to significantly (p < 0.001) better agreement among observers. The intra-observer results show Cohen’s κ values between 0.37 and 0.53 for all observers, except one with a low κ of −0.11. Group AUC scores lie between 0.66 and 0.72, with individual observers reaching 0.78. This study confirms that cine-MRI can diagnose adhesions, with respect to a radiologist consensus panel and shows that experience improves reading cine-MRI. Observers without specific experience adapt to this modality quickly after a short online tutorial. Observer agreement is fair at best and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) scores leave room for improvement. Consistently interpreting this novel modality needs further research, for instance, by developing reporting guidelines or artificial intelligence-based methods

Computed tomography of the abdomen:from one size fits all to custom-made

Since the discovery of the CT scanner in 1971, contrast media protocols, software and the scanners themselves have evolved rapidly. In the beginning, a one-size-fits-all method was used. The radiation dose was the same in each patient, as was the amount of contrast medium that was applied. However, the technical development of the scanner has made it possible to perform scans with different tube current (mAs) and tube voltage (kV). This thesis provides guidance on how to individualize both the radiation and the contrast media dose, based on the clinical question and patient characteristics (such as weight, age and renal function). The aim is to achieve optimal image quality in every patient

Tailoring Contrast Media Protocols to Varying Tube Voltages in Vascular and Parenchymal CT Imaging:The 10-to-10 Rule

The latest technical developments in CT have created the possibility for individualized scan protocols at variable kV settings. Lowering tube voltages closer to the K-edge of iodine increases attenuation. However, the latter is also influenced by patient characteristics such as total body weight. To maintain a robust contrast enhancement throughout the patient population in both vascular and parenchymal CT scans, one must adapt the contrast media administration protocols to both the selected kV setting and patient body habitus. This article proposes a simple rule of thumb for how to adapt the contrast media protocol to any kV setting: the 10-to-10 rule.</p

Performance of Centargo:A Novel Piston-Based Injection System for High Throughput in CE CT

PURPOSE: To compare an investigational device (MEDRAD(®) Centargo CT Injection System, “Centargo”) to the currently available MEDRAD(®) Stellant CT Injection System (“Stellant”), in terms of efficiency, injector performance, and user satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 425 patients at two sites were enrolled; 198 patients in phase one, a randomized study (98 Stellant and 100 Centargo). The second observational phase included 227 patients who were injected with Centargo. Phase one recorded times for setup, disassembly, and patient changeovers. Demographic data, subjective image quality, and injection parameters were collected. Phase two assessed usability via a questionnaire provided to all end-users of both systems (radiographers). RESULTS: Patient changeover times were statistically significantly faster with Centargo (15.4s ± 8.7s vs 53.7s ± 19.6s, p < 0.001). Centargo day-setup times were similar to Stellant (138.1s ± 92s vs 151.8s ± 30.6s, p = 0.33) and end-of-day-disassembly times were significantly slower (60.6s ± 27s vs 17.1s ± 12.9s, p < 0.001). Based on four different scenarios modelling patient throughput, the projected time savings with Centargo over Stellant was 40–63%, with the highest efficiency improvements for higher throughputs and the use of larger contrast medium bottles. Both Centargo and Stellant usability averaged between “Very Easy” and “Easy” in all responses to the questionnaire. There were no instances of interrupted injections due to communication loss or detected air and no insufficient images due to injector performance. No safety issues were identified. CONCLUSION: Centargo was able to demonstrate improved efficiency as compared to Stellant while maintaining injector performance and high usability scores

Individually Body Weight-Adapted Contrast Media Application in Computed Tomography Imaging of the Liver at 90 kVp

Objectives The aim of the present study was to evaluate the attenuation and image quality (IQ) of a body weight-adapted contrast media (CM) protocol compared with a fixed injection protocol in computed tomography (CT) of the liver at 90 kV. Materials and Methods One hundred ninety-nine consecutive patients referred for abdominal CT imaging in portal venous phase were included. Group 1 (n = 100) received a fixed CM dose with a total iodine load (TIL) of 33 g I at a flow rate of 3.5 mL/s, resulting in an iodine delivery rate (IDR) of 1.05 g I/s. Group 2 (n = 99) received a body weight-adapted CM protocol with a dosing factor of 0.4 g I/kg with a subsequent TIL adapted to the patients' weight. Injection time of 30 seconds was kept identical for all patients. Therefore, flow rate and IDR changed with different body weight. Patients were divided into 3 weight categories; 70 kg or less, 71 to 85 kg, and 86 kg or greater. Attenuation (HU) in 3 segments of the liver, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio were used to evaluate objective IQ. Subjective IQ was assessed by a 5-point Likert scale. Differences between groups were statistically analyzed (P 0.05). Body weight-adapted protocoling led to more homogeneous enhancement of the liver parenchyma compared with a fixed protocol with a mean enhancement per weight category in group 2 of 126.5 +/- 15.8, 128.2 +/- 15.3, and 122.7 +/- 21.2 HU compared with that in group 1 of 139.9 +/- 21.4, 124.6 +/- 24.8, and 116.2 +/- 17.8 HU, respectively. Conclusions Body weight-adapted CM injection protocols result in more homogeneous enhancement of the liver parenchyma at 90 kV in comparison to a fixed CM volume with comparable objective and subjective IQ, whereas overall CM volume can be safely reduced in more than half of patients

Leraar24.nl onderzocht.

Leraar24 is sinds 2009 steeds bekender onder leraren geworden, ook gebruik en waardering nemen toe en leraren zien het belang van Leraar24 voor professionaliserin

Individualized Scan Protocols in Abdominal Computed Tomography:Radiation Versus Contrast Media Dose Optimization

BACKGROUND: In contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT), radiation and contrast media (CM) injection protocols are closely linked to each other, and therefore a combination is the basis for achieving optimal image quality. However, most studies focus on optimizing one or the other parameter separately. PURPOSE: Reducing radiation dose may be most important for a young patient or a population in need of repetitive scanning, whereas CM reduction might be key in a population with insufficient renal function. The recently introduced technical solution, in the form of an automated tube voltage selection (ATVS) slider, might be helpful in this respect. The aim of the current study was to systematically evaluate feasibility of optimizing either radiation or CM dose in abdominal imaging compared with a combined approach. METHODS: Six Göttingen minipigs (mean weight, 38.9 ± 4.8 kg) were scanned on a third-generation dual-source CT. Automated tube voltage selection and automated tube current modulation techniques were used, with quality reference values of 120 kVref and 210 mAsref. Automated tube voltage selection was set at 90 kV semimode. Three different abdominal scan and CM protocols were compared intraindividually: (1) the standard "combined" protocol, with the ATVS slider position set at 7 and a body weight-adapted CM injection protocol of 350 mg I/kg body weight, iodine delivery rate (IDR) of 1.1 g I/s; (2) the CM dose-saving protocol, with the ATVS slider set at 3 and CM dose lowered to 294 mg I/kg, resulting in a lower IDR of 0.9 g I/s; (3) the radiation dose-saving protocol, with the ATVS slider position set at 11 and a CM dose of 441 mg I/kg and an IDR 1.3 g I/s, respectively. Scans were performed with each protocol in arterial, portal venous, and delayed phase. Objective image quality was evaluated by measuring the attenuation in Hounsfield units, signal-to-noise ratio, and contrast-to-noise ratio of the liver parenchyma. The overall image quality, contrast quality, noise, and lesion detection capability were rated on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = excellent, 5 = very poor). Protocols were compared for objective image quality parameters using 1-way analysis of variance and for subjective image quality parameters using Friedman test. RESULTS: The mean radiation doses were 5.2 ± 1.7 mGy for the standard protocol, 7.1 ± 2.0 mGy for the CM dose-saving protocol, and 3.8 ± 0.4 mGy for the radiation dose-saving protocol. The mean total iodine load in these groups was 13.7 ± 1.7, 11.4 ± 1.4, and 17.2 ± 2.1 g, respectively. No significant differences in subjective overall image or contrast quality were found. Signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio were not significantly different between protocols in any scan phase. Significantly more noise was seen when using the radiation dose-saving protocol (P < 0.01). In portal venous and delayed phases, the mean attenuation of the liver parenchyma significantly differed between protocols (P < 0.001). Lesion detection was significantly better in portal venous phase using the CM dose-saving protocol compared with the radiation dose-saving protocol (P = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: In this experimental setup, optimizing either radiation (-26%) or CM dose (-16%) is feasible in abdominal CT imaging. Individualizing either radiation or CM dose leads to comparable objective and subjective image quality. Personalized abdominal CT examination protocols can thus be tailored to individual risk assessment and might offer additional degrees of freedom

A New Algorithm for Automatically Calculating Noise, Spatial Resolution, and Contrast Image Quality Metrics:Proof-of-Concept and Agreement With Subjective Scores in Phantom and Clinical Abdominal CT

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a proof-of-concept computer algorithm to automatically determine noise, spatial resolution, and contrast-related image quality (IQ) metrics in abdominal portal venous phase computed tomography (CT) imaging and to assess agreement between resulting objective IQ metrics and subjective radiologist IQ ratings.MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithm was developed to calculate noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ parameters. The algorithm was subsequently used on 2 datasets of anthropomorphic phantom CT scans, acquired on 2 different scanners (n = 57 each), and on 1 dataset of patient abdominal CT scans (n = 510). These datasets include a range of high to low IQ: in the phantom dataset, this was achieved through varying scanner settings (tube voltage, tube current, reconstruction algorithm); in the patient dataset, lower IQ images were obtained by reconstructing 30 consecutive portal venous phase scans as if they had been acquired at lower mAs. Five noise, 1 spatial, and 13 contrast parameters were computed for the phantom datasets; for the patient dataset, 5 noise, 1 spatial, and 18 contrast parameters were computed. Subjective IQ rating was done using a 5-point Likert scale: 2 radiologists rated a single phantom dataset each, and another 2 radiologists rated the patient dataset in consensus. General agreement between IQ metrics and subjective IQ scores was assessed using Pearson correlation analysis. Likert scores were grouped into 2 categories, "insufficient" (scores 1-2) and "sufficient" (scores 3-5), and differences in computed IQ metrics between these categories were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.RESULTS: The algorithm was able to automatically calculate all IQ metrics for 100% of the included scans. Significant correlations with subjective radiologist ratings were found for 4 of 5 noise (R2 range = 0.55-0.70), 1 of 1 spatial resolution (R2 = 0.21 and 0.26), and 10 of 13 contrast (R2 range = 0.11-0.73) parameters in the phantom datasets and for 4 of 5 noise (R2 range = 0.019-0.096), 1 of 1 spatial resolution (R2 = 0.11), and 16 of 18 contrast (R2 range = 0.008-0.116) parameters in the patient dataset. Computed metrics that significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" categories were 4 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, 9 and 10 of 13 contrast parameters for phantom the datasets and 3 of 5 noise, 1 of 1 spatial resolution, and 10 of 18 contrast parameters for the patient dataset.CONCLUSION: The developed algorithm was able to successfully calculate objective noise, spatial resolution, and contrast IQ metrics of both phantom and clinical abdominal CT scans. Furthermore, multiple calculated IQ metrics of all 3 categories were in agreement with subjective radiologist IQ ratings and significantly differed between "insufficient" and "sufficient" IQ scans. These results demonstrate the feasibility and potential of algorithm-determined objective IQ. Such an algorithm should be applicable to any scan and may help in optimization and quality control through automatic IQ assessment in daily clinical practice.</p