Interobserver agreement of semi-automated and manual measurements of functional MRI metrics of treatment response in hepatocellular carcinoma

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 83, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 487-496

  Bonekamp, David ^a   Bonekamp, Susanne ^a   Halappa, Vivek Gowdra ^a   Geschwind, Jean Francois H ^a   Eng, John ^a   Corona Villalobos, Celia Pamela ^a   Pawlik, Timothy M ^b,c   Kamel, Ihab R ^a  

^a DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cancer treatment response; Functional magnetic resonance imaging; Observer agreement; Reproducibility; Response assessment

Indexed keywords

CANCER TREATMENT RESPONSE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OBSERVER AGREEMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESPONSE ASSESSMENT;

ALGORITHMS; CARCINOMA, HEPATOCELLULAR; CHEMOEMBOLIZATION, THERAPEUTIC; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LIVER NEOPLASMS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TREATMENT OUTCOME; TUMOR BURDEN;

EID: 84893980462     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: 18727727     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.11.016     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. P. Therasse, S.G. Arbuck, and E.A. Eisenhauer et al. New guidelines to evaluate the response to treatment in solid tumors. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, National Cancer Institute of the United States, National Cancer Institute of Canada Journal of the National Cancer Institute 92 3 2000 205 216
2. C. Suzuki, H. Jacobsson, and T. Hatschek et al. Radiologic measurements of tumor response to treatment: practical approaches and limitations Radiographics: A Review Publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 28 2 2008 329 344
3. J. Bruix, M. Sherman, and J.M. Llovet et al. Clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Conclusions of the Barcelona-2000 EASL conference. European Association for the Study of the Liver Journal of Hepatology 35 3 2001 421 430
4. S. Bonekamp, P. Jolepalem, M. Lazo, M.A. Gulsun, A.P. Kiraly, and I.R. Kamel Hepatocellular carcinoma: response to TACE assessed with semiautomated volumetric and functional analysis of diffusion-weighted and contrast-enhanced MR imaging data Radiology 260 3 2011 752 761
5. V. Gowdra Halappa, C.P. Corona-Villalobos, and S. Bonekamp et al. Neuroendocrine liver metastasis treated by using intraarterial therapy: volumetric functional imaging biomarkers of early tumor response and survival Radiology 266 2 2013 502 513
6. Z. Li, S. Bonekamp, and V.G. Halappa et al. Islet cell liver metastases: assessment of volumetric early response with functional MR imaging after transarterial chemoembolization Radiology 264 1 2012 97 109
7. T.K. Rhee, R.J. Lewandowski, and D.M. Liu et al. 90Y Radioembolization for metastatic neuroendocrine liver tumors: preliminary results from a multi-institutional experience Annals of Surgery 247 6 2008 1029 1035
8. S. Bonekamp, Z. Li, and J.F. Geschwind et al. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part I. Identification and validation of volumetric functional response criteria Radiology 268 2 2013 420 430
9. S. Bonekamp, V.G. Halappa, and J.F. Geschwind et al. Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: MR imaging after intraarterial therapy. Part II. Response stratification using volumetric functional criteria after intraarterial therapy Radiology 268 2 2013 431 439
10. L. Heijmen, E.E. Ter Voert, and I.D. Nagtegaal et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in liver metastases of colorectal cancer: reproducibility and biological validation European Radiology 23 3 2013 748 756
11. S.Y. Kim, S.S. Lee, and J.H. Byun et al. Malignant hepatic tumors: short-term reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficients with breath-hold and respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted MR imaging Radiology 255 3 2010 815 823
12. S. Kim, L. Mannelli, and C.H. Hajdu et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: assessment of response to transarterial chemoembolization with image subtraction Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 31 2 2010 348 355
13. C. Chefd'Hotel, G. Hermosillo, and O. Faugeras Flows of diffeomorphisms for multimodal image registration Proceedings 2002 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging 2002 753 756
14. L. Grady Random walks for image segmentation IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 28 11 2006 1768 1783
15. E. Moschidis, and J. Graham A systematic performance evaluation of interactive image segmentation methods based on simulated user interaction 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging: From Nano to Macro 2010 928 931
16. J.J. Bartko The intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of reliability Psychological Reports 19 1 1966 3 11
17. J.P. Weir Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research 19 1 2005 231 240
18. J. Martin Bland, and D. Altman Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement Lancet 327 8476 1986 307 310
19. W.L. Monsky, V. Raptopoulos, and M.T. Keogan et al. Reproducibility of linear tumor measurements using PACS: comparison of caliper method with edge-tracing method European Radiology 14 3 2004 519 525
20. C. Suzuki, M.R. Torkzad, and H. Jacobsson et al. Interobserver and intraobserver variability in the response evaluation of cancer therapy according to RECIST and WHO-criteria Acta Oncologica 49 4 2010 509 514
21. J.H. Rothe, C. Grieser, and L. Lehmkuhl et al. Size determination and response assessment of liver metastases with computed tomography - comparison of RECIST and volumetric algorithms European Journal of Radiology 82 11 2013 1831 1839
22. J. Kalkmann, S.C. Ladd, A. de Greiff, M. Forsting, and J. Stattaus Suitability of semi-automated tumor response assessment of liver metastases using a dedicated software package RöFo: Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Röntgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin 182 7 2010 581 588
23. E. Duke, J. Deng, and S.M. Ibrahim et al. Agreement between competing imaging measures of response of hepatocellular carcinoma to yttrium-90 radioembolization Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology 21 4 2010 515 521
24. M.S. Galizia, H.G. Tore, H. Chalian, R. McCarthy, R. Salem, and V. Yaghmai MDCT necrosis quantification in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma response to yttrium 90 radioembolization therapy: comparison of two-dimensional and volumetric techniques Academic Radiology 19 1 2012 48 54
25. A. Forner, C. Ayuso, and M. Varela et al. Evaluation of tumor response after locoregional therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: are response evaluation criteria in solid tumors reliable? Cancer 115 3 2009 616 623
26. J.H. Shim, H.C. Lee, and S.O. Kim et al. Which response criteria best help predict survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma following chemoembolization? A validation study of old and new models Radiology 262 2 2012 708 718
27. A.C. Braithwaite, B.M. Dale, D.T. Boll, and E.M. Merkle Short- and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen Radiology 250 2 2009 459 465
28. T.L. Lu, R.A. Meuli, P.M. Marques-Vidal, P. Bize, A. Denys, and S. Schmidt Interobserver and intraobserver variability of the apparent diffusion coefficient in treated malignant hepatic lesions on a 3.0 T machine: measurements in the whole lesion versus in the area with the most restricted diffusion. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 32 3 2010 647 653
29. G. Petralia, L. Bonello, and P. Summers et al. Intraobserver and interobserver variability in the calculation of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) from diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) of breast tumours La Radiologia Medica 116 3 2011 466 476
30. A.B. Rosenkrantz, M. Oei, J.S. Babb, B.E. Niver, and B. Taouli Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 33 1 2011 128 135
31. M. Sasaki, K. Yamada, and Y. Watanabe et al. Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study Radiology 249 2 2008 624 630
32. T.C. Kwee, T. Takahara, P.R. Luijten, and R.A. Nievelstein ADC measurements of lymph nodes: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility study and an overview of the literature European Journal of Radiology 75 2 2010 215 220
33. D.M. Lambregts, M. Maas, and R.G. Riedl et al. Value of ADC measurements for nodal staging after chemoradiation in locally advanced rectal cancer - a per lesion validation study European Radiology 21 2 2011 265 273
34. D.M. Lambregts, G.L. Beets, and M. Maas et al. Accuracy of gadofosveset-enhanced MRI for nodal staging and restaging in rectal cancer Annals of Surgery 253 3 2011 539 545
35. H. Chalian, S.M. Tochetto, H.G. Tore, P. Rezai, and V. Yaghmai Hepatic tumors: region-of-interest versus volumetric analysis for quantification of attenuation at CT Radiology 262 3 2012 853 861
36. T. Heye, E.M. Merkle, and C.S. Reiner et al. Reproducibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Part II. Comparison of intra- and interobserver variability with manual region of interest placement versus semiautomatic lesion segmentation and histogram analysis Radiology 266 3 2013 812 821