Diagnostic accuracy of susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of pineal gland calcification
Diagnostic accuracy of susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of pineal gland calcification
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0172764
复制
发表时间：
2017-03-09
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Makowski, Marcus R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adams, Lisa C.;Boeker, Sarah M.;Makowski, Marcus R.
目的以计算机断层扫描（CT）为参考标准，比较敏感性加权磁共振成像（SWMR）与常规磁共振成像（MRI）对松果体钙化（PGC）的诊断价值。方法回顾性分析2014年1月至2016年10月期间接受1.5特斯拉MRI扫描（包括SWMR序列）和CT扫描的s384例患者。346例患者纳入分析，其中214例在CT扫描上显示PGC。为了评估成像方式之间的相关性，我们使用了最大钙化直径。计算SWMR和常规MRI序列的敏感性和特异性以及观察者内部和观察者之间的信度。结果swmr检测PGC的灵敏度为95% (95% CI: 91%-97%)，特异性为96% (95% CI: 91%-99%)，而常规MRI检测PGC的灵敏度为43% (95% CI: 36%-50%)，特异性为96% （95% CI: 91%-99%）。SWMR和常规MRI的钙化检出率差异显著（95% vs 43%, p< 0.001）。SWMR和CT之间的直径测量显示出密切的相关性（R-2 = 0.85, p< 0.001），与轻微但不显著的尺寸高估（SWMR: 6.5 mm +/- 2.5; CT: 5.9 mm +/- 2.4, p = 0.02）。在SWMR上，直径测量的观察者间一致性非常好（ICC = 0.984, p < 0.0001）。结论结合SWMR的幅值和相位信息可以准确地检测PGC，比以CT为参考标准的常规MRI具有更好的诊断效果。
ObjectivesTo determine the diagnostic performance of susceptibility-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (SWMR) for the detection of pineal gland calcifications (PGC) compared to conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) sequences, using computed tomography (CT) as a reference standard.Methods384 patients who received a 1.5 Tesla MRI scan including SWMR sequences and a CT scan of the brain between January 2014 and October 2016 were retrospectively evaluated. 346 patients were included in the analysis, of which 214 showed PGC on CT scans. To assess correlation between imaging modalities, the maximum calcification diameter was used. Sensitivity and specificity and intra-and interobserver reliability were calculated for SWMR and conventional MRI sequences.ResultsSWMR reached a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI: 91%-97%) and a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 91%-99%) for the detection of PGC, whereas conventional MRI achieved a sensitivity of 43% (95% CI: 36%-50%) and a specificity of 96% (95% CI: 91%-99%). Detection rates for calcifications in SWMR and conventional MRI differed significantly (95% versus 43%, p< 0.001). Diameter measurements between SWMR and CT showed a close correlation (R-2 = 0.85, p< 0.001) with a slight but not significant overestimation of size (SWMR: 6.5 mm +/- 2.5; CT: 5.9 mm +/- 2.4, p = 0.02). Interobserver-agreement for diameter measurements was excellent on SWMR (ICC = 0.984, p < 0.0001).ConclusionsCombining SWMR magnitude and phase information enables the accurate detection of PGC and offers a better diagnostic performance than conventional MRI with CT as a reference standard.