2018
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-017-5265-2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

How reliable are ADC measurements? A phantom and clinical study of cervical lymph nodes

Abstract: ObjectiveTo assess the reliability of ADC measurements in vitro and in cervical lymph nodes of healthy volunteers.MethodsWe used a GE 1.5 T MRI scanner and a first ice-water phantom according to recommendations released by the Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance (QIBA) for assessing ADC against reference values. We analysed the target size effect by using a second phantom made of six inserted spheres with diameters ranging from 10 to 37 mm. Thirteen healthy volunteers were also scanned to assess the inter-… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

10
26
3

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(39 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
10
26
3
Order By: Relevance
“…Our result for interobserver reproducibility of ADC measurements for lymph nodes in children and adolescents with Hodgkin lymphoma emulates previous findings for nodal ADC reproducibility in healthy volunteers [25, 26]. Moreau et al [26] found that the inter-reader reproducibility for their ADC measurements showed an absolute bias of 0.045×10 −3 mm 2 s −1 (level of agreement −0.146; 0.056).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Our result for interobserver reproducibility of ADC measurements for lymph nodes in children and adolescents with Hodgkin lymphoma emulates previous findings for nodal ADC reproducibility in healthy volunteers [25, 26]. Moreau et al [26] found that the inter-reader reproducibility for their ADC measurements showed an absolute bias of 0.045×10 −3 mm 2 s −1 (level of agreement −0.146; 0.056).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Moreau et al [26] found that the inter-reader reproducibility for their ADC measurements showed an absolute bias of 0.045×10 −3 mm 2 s −1 (level of agreement −0.146; 0.056). Although both studies used a different protocol compared to our study, they highlighted that ADC measurement in healthy volunteers might not always be adequately reproducible and that a reliable use of ADC values requires further technical advances and systematic quality control [25, 26].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thirdly, we did not analyze a possible influence of some technical details, such as sequence type, choice of b values, and Tesla strength. The following aspect should also be addressed: Previously, some authors indicated that ADC values depended significantly on ADC measurements (39,40). It has been shown that different drawing methods, for example, whole tumor measurements, choice of multiple regions of interest, and/or single region measure, can influence ADC values (39,40).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, there are weighty problems with repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements between different MR units and centers, as well as various protocols, different acquisition and analysis methodologies are being used, which are only at the beginning to be challenged, especially for the whole-body imaging [21][22][23][24][25]. There are neither generalized quality controls nor standardization of ADC measurements, yet [10].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The measurement of a mean ADC value was performed on an ADC map, around the reference point set on DWI b = 0 map, by drawing a possibly smallest region of interest confined within the anatomical limits of a ganglion or a lymph node (on DWI b = 0 map with reference to T2-weighted images) to avoid a partial volume effect, as recommended by Moreau et al [10].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%