Interobserver variability for different methods of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in rectal cancer

WANG Yong; WANG Xiuping

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Interobserver variability for different methods of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in rectal cancer

更新时间：2025-12-15

- Interobserver variability for different methods of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient measurement in rectal cancer
- Vol. 26, Issue 4, Pages: 285-288(2017)
- 作者机构：
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：
  CLC：
- Published Online：01 November 2017，
  
  Published：01 November 2017
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
王勇,王秀平. 直肠癌不同表观扩散系数测量方法的一致性研究[J]. 肿瘤影像学, 2017, 26(4): 285-288
DOI：

王勇,王秀平. 直肠癌不同表观扩散系数测量方法的一致性研究[J]. 肿瘤影像学, 2017, 26(4): 285-288 DOI：

摘要

目的：

比较直肠癌不同表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficient，ADC)的测量方法，评价其对直肠癌ADC的影响。

方法：

回顾性收集37例直肠癌患者，术前行MRI包括扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging，DWI)(b值为0、1 000s/mm2)检查。由2名阅片者采用3种方法独立测量肿瘤ADC：全肿瘤测量、最大层面测量、肿瘤实性成分测量。计算不同测量方法所得ADC的一致性。

结果：

2名阅片者之间全肿瘤测量ADC的一致性极好(组内相关系数为0.87)，而最大层面和实性成分测量ADC的一致性一般(组内相关系数分别为0.56、0.58)。实性成分测量所得ADC低于全肿瘤测量(

0.001)和最大层面测量(

0.001)，而全肿瘤测量和最大层面测量所得SD值高于实性成分测量(

0.001、

=0.02)。

结论：

测量方法影响直肠癌ADC的大小和测量一致性，全肿瘤测量ADC的可重复性最优。

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the interobserver variability for different methods of tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement in rectal cancer.

Methods:

A total of 37 patients with rectal cancer were analyzed retrospectively. They underwent MRI including diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) (b values: 0 and 1 000 s/mm2). The mean ADC values were measured by two readers using three region of interest (ROI) protocols: whole-volume

single slice and small solid samples. The values of ADC and standard deviation (SD) and interobserver variability were compared.

Results:

Intracl

ass correlation coefficient (ICC) for whole-volume measurement was excellent (0.87)

while for single slice and small solid sample measurements were moderate (ICC: 0.56 for single slice

0.58 for small solid sample). ADC values measured by small solid sample method were significantly lower than those by whole-volume (

0.001) and single slice (

0.001). The SDs calculated by whole-volume and single slice methods were significantly larger than that by small solid sample method (

0.001 and

=0.02

respectively).

Conclusion:

ADC values and interobserver variability are influenced by different measurement methods. There peatability of whole-volume method is the best.

关键词

Keywords

references

Views

1597

下载量

CNKI被引量

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Comparative study on correlation between ADC values measured by three methods and pathological features in rectal adenocarcinoma

Value of histogram analysis of apparent diffusion coefficient maps in differentiating breast lesions

Correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient and pathological pattern and prognostic factors of rectal cancer

The relationship between mesorectal fat area and metachronous liver metastasis of mid-to-lower rectal cancer

Application of ADC imaging-based different radiomics models in predicting the efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer

Related Author

WU Kunhuanbsp

ZHENG Xin

ZHANG Hongjiang

ZHAO Ying

SHEN Lijuan

PENG Weijun

JIANG Zhaoxia

SUN Ruihong

Related Institution

Department of Radiology, Jinghong People&rsquo

Department of Magnetic Resonance, The First People&rsquo

Department of Radiology，Shanghai Fifth People&rsquo

Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center

Department of Radiology, Nantong Tumor Hospital

AI问答

⁰