Department of Neurology, MS Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, MS Center Amsterdam, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands/Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Onze Lieve Vrouwen Gasthuis, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Mult Scler. 2019 Mar;25(3):352-360. doi: 10.1177/1352458517751647. Epub 2018 Jan 12.
Compared to 1.5 T, 3 T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) increases signal-to-noise ratio leading to improved image quality. However, its clinical relevance in clinically isolated syndrome suggestive of multiple sclerosis remains uncertain.
The purpose of this study was to investigate how 3 T MRI affects the agreement between raters on lesion detection and diagnosis.
We selected 30 patients and 10 healthy controls from our ongoing prospective multicentre cohort. All subjects received baseline 1.5 and 3 T brain and spinal cord MRI. Patients also received follow-up brain MRI at 3-6 months. Four experienced neuroradiologists and four less-experienced raters scored the number of lesions per anatomical region and determined dissemination in space and time (McDonald 2010).
In controls, the mean number of lesions per rater was 0.16 at 1.5 T and 0.38 at 3 T ( p = 0.005). For patients, this was 4.18 and 4.40, respectively ( p = 0.657). Inter-rater agreement on involvement per anatomical region and dissemination in space and time was moderate to good for both field strengths. 3 T slightly improved agreement between experienced raters, but slightly decreased agreement between less-experienced raters.
Overall, the interobserver agreement was moderate to good. 3 T appears to improve the reading for experienced readers, underlining the benefit of additional training.
与 1.5T 相比，3T 磁共振成像（MRI）提高了信噪比，从而改善了图像质量。然而，其在提示多发性硬化的临床孤立综合征中的临床相关性尚不确定。
本研究旨在探讨 3T MRI 如何影响评分者在病变检测和诊断方面的一致性。
我们从正在进行的前瞻性多中心队列中选择了 30 名患者和 10 名健康对照者。所有受试者均接受了基线 1.5T 和 3T 脑和脊髓 MRI 检查。患者还在 3-6 个月时接受了脑 MRI 随访。4 名经验丰富的神经放射科医生和 4 名经验较少的评分者对每个解剖区域的病变数量进行评分，并确定空间和时间上的弥散（McDonald 2010）。
在对照组中，每位评分者在 1.5T 时的平均病变数为 0.16，在 3T 时为 0.38（p=0.005）。对于患者，这分别为 4.18 和 4.40（p=0.657）。对于两种场强，各评分者对每个解剖区域的受累程度和空间及时间上的弥散的一致性均为中度至良好。3T 略微提高了有经验评分者之间的一致性，但略微降低了经验较少评分者之间的一致性。
总体而言，观察者间的一致性为中度至良好。3T 似乎改善了有经验的阅读者的阅读效果，突出了额外培训的益处。
