Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: Despite a high variability, the hotspot method is widely used to calculate the cerebral blood volume (CBV) of glioblastomas on DSC-MRI. Our aim was to investigate inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of parameters calculated with the hotspot or a volume method and that of an original parameter assessing the fraction of pixels in the tumour volume displaying rCBV > 2: %rCBV > 2.
Methods: Twenty-seven consecutive patients with untreated glioblastoma (age: 63, women: 11) were retrospectively included. Three observers calculated the maximum tumour CBV value (rCBVmax) normalized with a reference ROI in the contralateral white matter (CBVWM) with (i) the hotspot method and (ii) with a volume method following tumour segmentation on 3D contrast-enhanced T1-WI. From this volume method, %rCBV > 2 was also assessed. After 8-12 weeks, one observer repeated all delineations. Intraclass (ICC) and Lin's (LCC) correlation coefficients were used to determine reproducibility.
Results: Inter-observer reproducibility of rCBVmax was fair with the hotspot and good with the volume method (ICC = 0.46 vs 0.65, p > 0.05). For CBVWM, it was fair with the hotspot and excellent with the volume method (0.53 vs 0.84, p < 0.05). Reproducibility of one pairwise combination of observers was significantly better for both rCBVmax and CBVWM (LCC = 0.33 vs 0.75; 0.52 vs 0.89, p < 0.05). %rCBV > 2 showed excellent inter- and intra-observer reproducibility (ICC = 0.94 and 0.91).
Conclusion: Calculated in glioblastomas with a volume method, rCBVmax and CBVWM yielded good to excellent reproducibility but only fair with the hotspot method. Overall, the volume analysis offers a highly reproducible parameter, %rCBV > 2, that could be promising during the follow-up of such heterogeneous tumours.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-022-02937-6 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!