Tselikas Lambros, Souillard-Scemama Raphaëlle, Naggara Olivier, Mellerio Charles, Varlet Pascale, Dezamis Edouard, Domont Julien, Dhermain Frédéric, Devaux Bertrand, Chrétien Fabrice, Meder Jean-François, Pallud Johan, Oppenheim Catherine
Neuroimaging Department, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (L.T., R.S.-S., O.N., C.M., J.-F.M., C.O.); Neurosurgery Department, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (E.D., B.D., J.P.); Neuropathology Department, Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (P.V., F.C.); INSERM U 894 Centre Hospitalier Sainte-Anne, Paris, France (O.N., C.O.); Radiation Therapy and Physics Department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France (F.D.); Medical Oncology department, Gustave Roussy Institute, Villejuif, France (J.D.); Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France (O.N., P.V., F.C., J.-F.M., J.P., C.O.).
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Jun;17(6):895-900. doi: 10.1093/neuonc/nou332. Epub 2014 Dec 18.
Glioma follow-up is based on MRI parameters, which are correlated with survival. Although established criteria are used to evaluate tumor response, radiological markers may be confounded by differences in instrumentation including the magnetic field strength. We assessed whether MRIs obtained at 3 Tesla (T) and 1.5T provided similar information.
We retrospectively compared imaging features of 30 consecutive patients with WHO grades II and III gliomas who underwent MRI at 1.5T and 3T within a month of each other, without any clinical changes during the same period. We compared lesion volumes on fluid attenuation inversion recovery (FLAIR), ratio of cerebral blood volume (rCBV) on perfusion-weighted imaging, contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) on FLAIR, and on post-gadolinium 3D T1-weighted sequences between 1.5T and 3T using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Concordance between observers within and between modalities was evaluated using weighted-kappa coefficient (wκ).
The mean ± SD delay between modalities (1.5T and 3T MRI) was 8.6 ± 5.6 days. Interobserver/intraobserver concordance for lesion volume was almost perfect for 1.5T (ICC = 0.96/0.97) and 3T (ICC = 0.99/0.98). Agreement between observers for contrast enhancement was excellent at 1.5T (wκ = 0.92) and 3T (wκ = 0.92). The tumor CNR was significantly higher for FLAIR at 1.5T (P < .001), but it was higher at 3T (P = .012) for contrast enhancement. Correlations between modalities for lesion volume (ICC = 0.97) and for rCBV values (ICC = 0.92) were almost perfect.
In the follow-up of WHO grades II and III gliomas, 1.5T and 3T provide similar MRI features, suggesting that monitoring could be performed on either a 1.5 or a 3T MR magnet.
胶质瘤的随访基于MRI参数，这些参数与生存率相关。尽管采用既定标准来评估肿瘤反应，但放射学标志物可能会因仪器差异（包括磁场强度）而混淆。我们评估了在3特斯拉（T）和1.5T场强下获得的MRI是否能提供相似的信息。
我们回顾性比较了30例连续的WHO II级和III级胶质瘤患者的影像特征，这些患者在彼此相隔一个月内分别接受了1.5T和3T的MRI检查，且在此期间无任何临床变化。我们使用组内相关系数（ICC）比较了液体衰减反转恢复（FLAIR）序列上的病变体积、灌注加权成像上的脑血容量比值（rCBV）、FLAIR序列上的对比噪声比（CNR）以及钆剂增强后三维T1加权序列在1.5T和3T之间的差异。使用加权kappa系数（wκ）评估不同检查方法之间以及同一检查方法内观察者之间的一致性。
两种检查方法（1.5T和3T MRI）之间的平均±标准差间隔时间为8.6±5.6天。对于病变体积，1.5T（ICC = 0.96/0.97）和3T（ICC = 0.99/0.98）的观察者间/观察者内一致性几乎完美。对于对比增强，1.5T（wκ = 0.92）和3T（wκ = 0.92）时观察者之间的一致性极佳。1.5T时FLAIR序列上肿瘤的CNR显著更高（P <.001），但钆剂增强时3T时更高（P =.012）。病变体积（ICC = 0.97）和rCBV值（ICC = 0.92）在不同检查方法之间的相关性几乎完美。
在WHO II级和III级胶质瘤的随访中，1.5T和3T提供相似的MRI特征，这表明可以在1.5T或3T MR磁体上进行监测。
