Bretas Elisa Almeida Sathler, Torres Ulysses S, Torres Lucas Rios, Bekhor Daniel, Saito Filho Celso Fernando, Racy Douglas Jorge, Faggioni Lorenzo, D'Ippolito Giuseppe
1 Department of Imaging, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
2 Department of Radiology, Grupo Fleury, São Paulo, Brazil.
Br J Radiol. 2017 Oct;90(1078):20170214. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20170214. Epub 2017 Aug 22.
To evaluate the agreement between the measurements of perfusion CT parameters in normal livers by using two different software packages.
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.
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.
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.
使用两种不同的软件包评估正常肝脏灌注CT参数测量之间的一致性。
本回顾性研究基于78例为检测疑似肝转移而进行的肝脏灌注CT检查。排除有任何形态学或功能性肝脏异常的患者。最终分析纳入37例患者(59.7±14.9岁)。两名阅片者(1和2)使用来自两家主要制造商(A和B)的不同软件包独立测量灌注参数。采用双输入血管单室模型确定动脉灌注(AP)和门静脉灌注(PP)。使用组内相关系数(ICC)和布兰德-奥特曼统计量评估每个软件包的阅片者间一致性以及两个软件包之间的阅片者内一致性。
使用软件A(ICC = 0.82)和软件B(ICC = 0.85 - 0.86)时,阅片者间AP一致性较高;使用软件A时PP一致性一般(ICC = 0.44),使用软件B时PP一致性为一般至中等(ICC = 0.56 - 0.77)。考虑AP参数时,软件A和B之间阅片者1和阅片者2的阅片者内一致性为轻微至中等(ICC = 0.32 - 0.62);考虑PP参数时,阅片者1和阅片者2的阅片者内一致性为一般至中等(ICC = 0.40 - 0.69)。
两个软件包之间充其量只有中等程度的一致性,导致存在一些不确定性和再现性欠佳。知识进展:软件相关因素可能导致灌注测量结果存在差异,需要进一步的技术改进。在评估肝脏灌注CT时,AP测量似乎是最具可重复性的参数。