Professor of Radiology, Northeastern Ohio Medical University, Rootstown, OH, USA.
Southwoods Imaging, Youngstown, OH, USA.
J Ultrasound Med. 2022 Aug;41(8):1939-1948. doi: 10.1002/jum.15870. Epub 2021 Nov 3.
To compare the estimates of attenuation coefficient (AC) for liver fat quantification between 2 Ultrasound systems and to evaluate the quality measure of a pre-released software.
AC were obtained in 30 participants in this single-center IRB-approved, HIPAA compliant study. Images were obtained on the Philips Epiq Elite system using experimental software and the Canon Medical Systems Aplio i800 with released software. Five AC measurements were taken and the median and IQR/M were calculated. Region of interest placement was based on a confidence map. ROI was at the same depth and size for each system. The concordance was estimated using the Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the r Pearson's correlation coefficient, the bias-correction factor (Cb), and the Bland-Altman method.
The ACs varied from 0.45 to 1.0 dB/cm/MHz for the Philips system and 0.30 to 0.96 dB/cm/MHz for the Canon system. The CCC (95% CI) was 0.792 (0.666-0.918), Pearson's r was 0.839 with Cb of 0.944, and the mean difference was 0.03 (-0.101; 0.162) suggesting the 2 methods are considered to be in agreement. Based on a Philips confidence map to determine the best location for performing the measurements, a depth of 3.5 to 4.0 cm from the liver capsule was determined, which might be significantly different than that of the Canon system.
Estimation of the AC of the 2 systems showed a high agreement, that is, a similar trend. Assessment of the placement of the measurement box based on the quality of the measurement might be different between the 2 systems.
比较两种超声系统对肝脏脂肪定量衰减系数(AC)的估计,并评估一款预发布软件的质量指标。
本单中心 IRB 批准、符合 HIPAA 标准的研究共纳入 30 名参与者。使用实验软件在飞利浦 Epiq Elite 系统和佳能医疗系统 Aplio i800 系统上获取图像,后者采用已发布软件。对每个系统进行了 5 次 AC 测量,计算中位数和 IQR/M。感兴趣区(ROI)的定位基于置信度图。每个系统的 ROI 深度和大小均相同。采用 Lin 一致性相关系数(CCC)、Pearson 相关系数 r、偏倚校正因子(Cb)和 Bland-Altman 方法评估一致性。
飞利浦系统的 AC 范围为 0.45 至 1.0dB/cm/MHz,佳能系统的 AC 范围为 0.30 至 0.96dB/cm/MHz。CCC(95%CI)为 0.792(0.666-0.918),Pearson r 为 0.839,Cb 为 0.944,平均差异为 0.03(-0.101;0.162),表明这两种方法被认为是一致的。基于飞利浦的置信度图来确定进行测量的最佳位置,确定肝包膜下 3.5 至 4.0cm 深度可能与佳能系统有显著差异。
两种系统对 AC 的估计显示出高度一致性,即具有相似的趋势。基于测量质量评估测量框的放置位置,两种系统可能存在差异。