Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025
Diffusion tensor imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging of the pancreas - feasibility, robustness and protocol comparison in a healthy population.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Bilreiro Carlos, Andrade Luisa, Henriques Rafael, Loução Nuno, Matos Celso, Shemesh Noam
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aims to determine the feasibility, image quality, intra-subject repeatability and inter-reader variability of Diffusion tensor (DTI) and Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) for pancreatic imaging using different protocols and report normative values in healthy individuals.
METHODS: Single-institution prospective study performed on healthy volunteers in a clinical 3T scanner, using two different protocols (6/16 diffusion directions). Acquisitions were repeated twice to assess intra-subject repeatability. To assess inter-reader variability, Mean diffusivity (MD), Axial diffusivity (AD), Radial diffusivity (RD), Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and Mean kurtosis (MK) values were extracted from segmented pancreas by two radiologists. A Likert scale was used by both readers to assess subjective image quality.
RESULTS: Twelve healthy volunteers were recruited for each MRI protocol. The 6 diffusion directions protocol was shorter: 7 min vs. 14 min (corresponding to 4 min vs. 7.5 min for a DTI only reconstruction). No differences in image quality were found between protocols. Only MK maps showed implausible estimates, leading to the exclusion of median 16% and 17.7% pixels for the 6- and 16-direction protocols, respectively. Intra-subject repeatability was determined with negligible coefficients of repeatability for DTI; however, MK presented slightly higher values. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for all maps (ICC > 0.9).
CONCLUSIONS: DTI and DKI of the pancreas are feasible in clinical settings, with excellent inter-observer agreement and good image quality. Intra-subject repeatability is excellent for DTI, but some variability was observed with DKI. A 6-directions protocol may be preferred due to faster acquisition without quantitatively compromising estimates. MK inaccuracies prompt further research for improving artifact correction.
METHODS: Single-institution prospective study performed on healthy volunteers in a clinical 3T scanner, using two different protocols (6/16 diffusion directions). Acquisitions were repeated twice to assess intra-subject repeatability. To assess inter-reader variability, Mean diffusivity (MD), Axial diffusivity (AD), Radial diffusivity (RD), Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and Mean kurtosis (MK) values were extracted from segmented pancreas by two radiologists. A Likert scale was used by both readers to assess subjective image quality.
RESULTS: Twelve healthy volunteers were recruited for each MRI protocol. The 6 diffusion directions protocol was shorter: 7 min vs. 14 min (corresponding to 4 min vs. 7.5 min for a DTI only reconstruction). No differences in image quality were found between protocols. Only MK maps showed implausible estimates, leading to the exclusion of median 16% and 17.7% pixels for the 6- and 16-direction protocols, respectively. Intra-subject repeatability was determined with negligible coefficients of repeatability for DTI; however, MK presented slightly higher values. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for all maps (ICC > 0.9).
CONCLUSIONS: DTI and DKI of the pancreas are feasible in clinical settings, with excellent inter-observer agreement and good image quality. Intra-subject repeatability is excellent for DTI, but some variability was observed with DKI. A 6-directions protocol may be preferred due to faster acquisition without quantitatively compromising estimates. MK inaccuracies prompt further research for improving artifact correction.