Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33409773›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measurements: a prospective multicenter whole-body-MRI study.

Nicolas F Michoux, Jakub W Ceranka, Jef Vandemeulebroucke, Frank Peeters, Pierre Lu, Julie Absil, Perrine Triqueneaux, Yan Liu, Laurence Collette, Inneke Willekens and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Nicolas F MichouxInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium. nicolas.michoux@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0104-0744
Jakub W CerankaDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Jef VandemeulebrouckeDepartment of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Frank PeetersInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Pierre LuInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Julie AbsilRadiology Department, Université libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Perrine TriqueneauxInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Yan LiuEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Laurence ColletteEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium.
Inneke WillekensMRI Department, UZ Brussel, Jette, Belgium.
Carola BrussaardMRI Department, UZ Brussel, Jette, Belgium.
Olivier DebeirLISA (Laboratories of Image Synthesis and Analysis), Ecole Polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Stephan HahnLISA (Laboratories of Image Synthesis and Analysis), Ecole Polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Hubert RaeymaekersMRI Department, UZ Brussel, Jette, Belgium.
Johan de MeyMRI Department, UZ Brussel, Jette, Belgium.
Thierry MetensRadiology Department, Université libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium.
Frédéric E LecouvetInstitut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Cliniques Universitaires Saint-Luc · BEUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer · BEVrije Universiteit Brussel · BE

Funding

Innoviris Grant 2013-PFS-EH-7
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesMulticenter oncology trials increasingly include MRI examinations with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for lesion characterization and follow-up. However, the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) limits above which a true change in ADC can be considered relevant are poorly defined. This study assessed these limits in a standardized whole-body (WB)-MRI protocol.

methodsA prospective, multicenter study was performed at three centers equipped with the same 3.0-T scanners to test a WB-MRI protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Eight healthy volunteers per center were enrolled to undergo test and retest examinations in the same center and a third examination in another center. ADC variability was assessed in multiple organs by two readers using two-way mixed ANOVA, Bland-Altman plots, coefficient of variation (CoV), and the upper limit of the 95% CI on repeatability (RC) and reproducibility (RDC) coefficients.

resultsCoV of ADC was not influenced by other factors (center, reader) than the organ. Based on the upper limit of the 95% CI on RC and RDC (from both readers), a change in ADC in an individual patient must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central and peripheral zones of the prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be significant.

conclusionsThis study proposes R&R limits above which ADC changes can be considered as a reliable quantitative endpoint to assess disease or treatment-related changes in the tissue microstructure in the setting of multicenter WB-MRI trials. KEY POINTS: • The present study showed the range of R&R of ADC in WB-MRI that may be achieved in a multicenter framework when a standardized protocol is deployed. • R&R was not influenced by the site of acquisition of DW images. • Clinically significant changes in ADC measured in a multicenter WB-MRI protocol performed with the same type of MRI scanner must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central zone and peripheral zone of prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be detected with a 95% confidence level.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingMagnetic Resonance ImagingHumansMaleProspective StudiesProstateReproducibility of ResultsCancerDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingDisease progressionReproducibility of resultsWhole-body imaging

Identifiers

PMID33409773
OpenAlexW3120268845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.