Background: High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sources of variation between many centers, and provide a multi-center consensus ground truth dataset for benchmarking automated processing tools and facilitating training for new readers in CMR analysis.
Methods: Seven independent expert readers, representing seven experienced CMR core laboratories, analyzed fifteen cine CMR data sets in accordance with their standard operating protocols and SCMR guidelines. Consensus contours were generated for each image according to a statistical optimization scheme that maximized contour placement agreement between readers.
Results: Reader-consensus agreement was better than inter-reader agreement (end-diastolic volume 14.7 ml vs 15.2-28.4 ml; end-systolic volume 13.2 ml vs 14.0-21.5 ml; LV mass 17.5 g vs 20.2-34.5 g; ejection fraction 4.2 % vs 4.6-7.5 %). Compared with consensus contours, readers were very consistent (small variability across cases within each reader), but bias varied between readers due to differences in contouring protocols at each center. Although larger contour differences were found at the apex and base, the main effect on volume was due to small but consistent differences in the position of the contours in all regions of the LV.
Conclusions: A multi-center consensus dataset was established for the purposes of benchmarking and training. Achieving consensus on contour drawing protocol between centers before analysis, or bias correction after analysis, is required when collating multi-center results.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517503 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9 | DOI Listing |
Pract Radiat Oncol
December 2024
Department of Radiation Oncology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.
Purpose: Many medical students in the U.S. lack formal exposure to radiation oncology (RO).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJAMA Netw Open
December 2024
Department of Radiation Oncology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
Importance: Radiotherapy (RT) plan quality is an established predictive factor associated with cancer recurrence and survival outcomes. The addition of radiologists to the peer review (PR) process may increase RT plan quality.
Objective: To determine the rate of changes to the RT plan with and without radiology involvement in PR of radiation targets.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys
December 2024
Department of Radiation Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, Ohio. Electronic address:
Purpose: Meningiomas are the most common primary intracranial tumor. Somatostatin receptor 2 is almost universally expressed in meningioma tissue. For patients who require adjuvant radiation, somatostatin receptor based (68)Ga-DOTATATE positron emission tomography (PET) imaging can detect additional or residual disease not discernible on magnetic resonance imaging.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPhys Med
January 2025
Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA; Department of Radiology, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA. Electronic address:
Introduction: Consensus contouring guidelines for intensity-modulated-radiation-therapy (IMRT) of patients with locally advanced cervix cancer (LACC) advise including the whole uterus in the target volume and adding generous planning-target-volumes (PTVs) to account for motion uncertainties of the gross-tumor-volume (GTV). The primary objective of this analysis was to assess the interfractional GTV motions using a magnetic-resonance-image (MRI) guided-Radiation-Therapy (MRgRT) system to investigate the margins required for MRgRT treatments.
Methods: 125 daily set-up MRIs from five patients with LACC who received MRgRT were analyzed.
Sci Adv
December 2024
Aker BP ASA, Oslo, Norway.
Efforts to understand how Pleistocene climate changes were translated into fluctuations in ice sheet extent and volume are limited by a lack of consensus about the glacial history of the North Sea. Here, we use high-resolution 3D seismic data to interpret the landforms and sediments of the central North Sea in unprecedented detail. In contrast to previous interpretations of multiple extensive early glaciations, our data suggest that grounded ice extended across the central North Sea only once, from western Norway, during the Early Pleistocene.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!