Journal of nuclear cardiology : official publication of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology · 2016
Influence of ROI definition on the heart-to-mediastinum ratio in planar 123I-MIBG imaging.
СтатьяПоддержка 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.
Klene Christiane, Jungen Christiane, Okuda Koichi, Kobayashi Yuske, Helberg Annabelle, Mester Janos, Meyer Christian, Nakajima Kenichi
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Iodine-123-metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) imaging with estimation of the heart-to-mediastinum ratio (HMR) has been established for risk assessment in patients with chronic heart failure. Our aim was to evaluate the effect of different methods of ROI definition on the renderability of HMR to normal or decreased sympathetic innervation.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The results of three different methods of ROI definition (clinical routine (CLI), simple standardization (STA), and semi-automated (AUT) were compared. Ranges of 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of inter-observer variabilities were 0.28 and 0.13 for STA and AUT, respectively. Considering a HMR of 1.60 as the lower limit of normal, 13 of 32 (41%) for method STA and 5 of 32 (16%) for method AUT of all HMR measurements could not be classified to normal or pathologic. Ranges of 95% LoA of inter-method variabilities were 0.72 for CLI vs AUT, 0.65 for CLI vs STA, and 0.31 for STA vs AUT.
CONCLUSION: Different methods of ROI definition result in different ranges of the LoA of the measured HMR with relevance for rendering the results to normal or pathological innervation. We could demonstrate that standardized protocols can help keep methodological variabilities limited, narrowing the gray zone of renderability.
METHODS AND RESULTS: The results of three different methods of ROI definition (clinical routine (CLI), simple standardization (STA), and semi-automated (AUT) were compared. Ranges of 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of inter-observer variabilities were 0.28 and 0.13 for STA and AUT, respectively. Considering a HMR of 1.60 as the lower limit of normal, 13 of 32 (41%) for method STA and 5 of 32 (16%) for method AUT of all HMR measurements could not be classified to normal or pathologic. Ranges of 95% LoA of inter-method variabilities were 0.72 for CLI vs AUT, 0.65 for CLI vs STA, and 0.31 for STA vs AUT.
CONCLUSION: Different methods of ROI definition result in different ranges of the LoA of the measured HMR with relevance for rendering the results to normal or pathological innervation. We could demonstrate that standardized protocols can help keep methodological variabilities limited, narrowing the gray zone of renderability.