Standardized Volume Rendering for Magnetic Resonance Angiography Measurements in the Abdominal Aorta
Purpose: To compare three methods for standardizing volume rendering technique (VRT) protocols by studying aortic diameter measurements in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) datasets. Material and Methods: Datasets from 20 patients previously examined with gadolinium-enhanced MRA and with digital...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Acta radiologica (1987) 2006-03, Vol.47 (2), p.172-178 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 178 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 172 |
container_title | Acta radiologica (1987) |
container_volume | 47 |
creator | Persson, A. Brismar, T. B. Lundström, C. Dahlström, N. Othberg, F. Smedby, Ö. |
description | Purpose: To compare three methods for standardizing volume rendering technique (VRT) protocols by studying aortic diameter measurements in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) datasets.
Material and Methods: Datasets from 20 patients previously examined with gadolinium-enhanced MRA and with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively evaluated by three independent readers. The MRA datasets were viewed using VRT with three different standardized transfer functions: the percentile method (Pc-VRT), the maximum-likelihood method (ML-VRT), and the partial range histogram method (PRH-VRT). The aortic diameters obtained with these three methods were compared with freely chosen VRT parameters (F-VRT) and with maximum intensity projection (MIP) concerning inter-reader variability and agreement with the reference method DSA.
Results: F-VRT parameters and PRH-VRT gave significantly higher diameter values than DSA, whereas Pc-VRT gave significantly lower values than DSA. The highest interobserver variability was found for F-VRT parameters and MIP, and the lowest for Pc-VRT and PRH-VRT. All standardized VRT methods were significantly superior to both MIP and F-VRT in this respect. The agreement with DSA was best for PRH-VRT, which was the only method with a mean error below 1 mm and which also had the narrowest limits of agreement (95% of cases between 2.1 mm below and 3.1 mm above DSA).
Conclusion: All the standardized VRT methods compare favorably with MIP and VRT with freely selected parameters as regards interobserver variability. The partial range histogram method, although systematically overestimating vessel diameters, gives results closest to those of DSA. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1080/02841850500445298 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_swepu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_576129</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1080_02841850500445298</sage_id><sourcerecordid>67852378</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-b05c4d997943fab2a524cbcbe7c79a680a13ad4f4929dc6a969447fc324420ef3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQhiMEokvhB3BBucCJFNux41icVuVTaoXER6_WxJ7suiT2YidC5dfjZQN7QEWcbM08z1j266J4TMkZJS15QVjLaSuIIIRzwVR7p1jRhpCKcCHuFqt9v8oAPSkepHRNCGVS0PvFCW0awlXDV4X9NIG3EK37gba8CsM8YvkRvcXo_KbsQywvYeNxciaXU_DgDZZrv3FhE2G3vSkvEdIccUQ_pdL5ctrmfmfD6DwM5TrECR4W93oYEj5a1tPiy5vXn8_fVRcf3r4_X19URvB6qjoiDLdKScXrHjoGgnHTmQ6lkQqalgCtwfKeK6asaUA1inPZm5pxzgj29WlRHeam77ibO72LboR4owM4vZS-5h1qIRvKVOblrfwuBnuUfotUiVbSvfn8VvOVu1rrEDd6cLOmXCia8WcHPE_9NmOa9OiSwWEAj2FOupGtYLVsM0gPoIkhpYj9n8mU6H3m-q_Ms_NkGT53I9qjsYScgacLAMnA0MecoUtHTubXZ7-4s-VSsEF9HeaYE0z_PPnlQXA-f5QRtgjDtDUQ_8v-CXMZ1gg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>67852378</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Standardized Volume Rendering for Magnetic Resonance Angiography Measurements in the Abdominal Aorta</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Taylor & Francis</source><creator>Persson, A. ; Brismar, T. B. ; Lundström, C. ; Dahlström, N. ; Othberg, F. ; Smedby, Ö.</creator><creatorcontrib>Persson, A. ; Brismar, T. B. ; Lundström, C. ; Dahlström, N. ; Othberg, F. ; Smedby, Ö.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: To compare three methods for standardizing volume rendering technique (VRT) protocols by studying aortic diameter measurements in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) datasets.
Material and Methods: Datasets from 20 patients previously examined with gadolinium-enhanced MRA and with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively evaluated by three independent readers. The MRA datasets were viewed using VRT with three different standardized transfer functions: the percentile method (Pc-VRT), the maximum-likelihood method (ML-VRT), and the partial range histogram method (PRH-VRT). The aortic diameters obtained with these three methods were compared with freely chosen VRT parameters (F-VRT) and with maximum intensity projection (MIP) concerning inter-reader variability and agreement with the reference method DSA.
Results: F-VRT parameters and PRH-VRT gave significantly higher diameter values than DSA, whereas Pc-VRT gave significantly lower values than DSA. The highest interobserver variability was found for F-VRT parameters and MIP, and the lowest for Pc-VRT and PRH-VRT. All standardized VRT methods were significantly superior to both MIP and F-VRT in this respect. The agreement with DSA was best for PRH-VRT, which was the only method with a mean error below 1 mm and which also had the narrowest limits of agreement (95% of cases between 2.1 mm below and 3.1 mm above DSA).
Conclusion: All the standardized VRT methods compare favorably with MIP and VRT with freely selected parameters as regards interobserver variability. The partial range histogram method, although systematically overestimating vessel diameters, gives results closest to those of DSA.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0284-1851</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1600-0455</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/02841850500445298</identifier><identifier>PMID: 16604964</identifier><identifier>CODEN: ACRAE3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: Informa UK Ltd</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; Angiography, Digital Subtraction ; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - pathology ; Biological and medical sciences ; Cardiovascular system ; Contrast Media ; Gadolinium DTPA ; Humans ; Imaging, Three-Dimensional ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Magnetic Resonance Angiography - standards ; Medical sciences ; Medicin och hälsovetenskap ; Observer Variation ; Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry ; Retrospective Studies ; TECHNOLOGY ; TEKNIKVETENSKAP</subject><ispartof>Acta radiologica (1987), 2006-03, Vol.47 (2), p.172-178</ispartof><rights>2006 Informa UK Ltd All rights reserved: reproduction in whole or part not permitted 2006</rights><rights>2006 Taylor & Francis</rights><rights>2006 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-b05c4d997943fab2a524cbcbe7c79a680a13ad4f4929dc6a969447fc324420ef3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-b05c4d997943fab2a524cbcbe7c79a680a13ad4f4929dc6a969447fc324420ef3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02841850500445298$$EPDF$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02841850500445298$$EHTML$$P50$$Ginformahealthcare$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,315,781,785,886,27929,27930,61226,61407</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=17543264$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16604964$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-14591$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://kipublications.ki.se/Default.aspx?queryparsed=id:1958719$$DView record from Swedish Publication Index$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Persson, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brismar, T. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lundström, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahlström, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Othberg, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smedby, Ö.</creatorcontrib><title>Standardized Volume Rendering for Magnetic Resonance Angiography Measurements in the Abdominal Aorta</title><title>Acta radiologica (1987)</title><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><description>Purpose: To compare three methods for standardizing volume rendering technique (VRT) protocols by studying aortic diameter measurements in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) datasets.
Material and Methods: Datasets from 20 patients previously examined with gadolinium-enhanced MRA and with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively evaluated by three independent readers. The MRA datasets were viewed using VRT with three different standardized transfer functions: the percentile method (Pc-VRT), the maximum-likelihood method (ML-VRT), and the partial range histogram method (PRH-VRT). The aortic diameters obtained with these three methods were compared with freely chosen VRT parameters (F-VRT) and with maximum intensity projection (MIP) concerning inter-reader variability and agreement with the reference method DSA.
Results: F-VRT parameters and PRH-VRT gave significantly higher diameter values than DSA, whereas Pc-VRT gave significantly lower values than DSA. The highest interobserver variability was found for F-VRT parameters and MIP, and the lowest for Pc-VRT and PRH-VRT. All standardized VRT methods were significantly superior to both MIP and F-VRT in this respect. The agreement with DSA was best for PRH-VRT, which was the only method with a mean error below 1 mm and which also had the narrowest limits of agreement (95% of cases between 2.1 mm below and 3.1 mm above DSA).
Conclusion: All the standardized VRT methods compare favorably with MIP and VRT with freely selected parameters as regards interobserver variability. The partial range histogram method, although systematically overestimating vessel diameters, gives results closest to those of DSA.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>Angiography, Digital Subtraction</subject><subject>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - pathology</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Cardiovascular system</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Gadolinium DTPA</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Angiography - standards</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>TECHNOLOGY</subject><subject>TEKNIKVETENSKAP</subject><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2006</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk1v1DAQhiMEokvhB3BBucCJFNux41icVuVTaoXER6_WxJ7suiT2YidC5dfjZQN7QEWcbM08z1j266J4TMkZJS15QVjLaSuIIIRzwVR7p1jRhpCKcCHuFqt9v8oAPSkepHRNCGVS0PvFCW0awlXDV4X9NIG3EK37gba8CsM8YvkRvcXo_KbsQywvYeNxciaXU_DgDZZrv3FhE2G3vSkvEdIccUQ_pdL5ctrmfmfD6DwM5TrECR4W93oYEj5a1tPiy5vXn8_fVRcf3r4_X19URvB6qjoiDLdKScXrHjoGgnHTmQ6lkQqalgCtwfKeK6asaUA1inPZm5pxzgj29WlRHeam77ibO72LboR4owM4vZS-5h1qIRvKVOblrfwuBnuUfotUiVbSvfn8VvOVu1rrEDd6cLOmXCia8WcHPE_9NmOa9OiSwWEAj2FOupGtYLVsM0gPoIkhpYj9n8mU6H3m-q_Ms_NkGT53I9qjsYScgacLAMnA0MecoUtHTubXZ7-4s-VSsEF9HeaYE0z_PPnlQXA-f5QRtgjDtDUQ_8v-CXMZ1gg</recordid><startdate>20060301</startdate><enddate>20060301</enddate><creator>Persson, A.</creator><creator>Brismar, T. B.</creator><creator>Lundström, C.</creator><creator>Dahlström, N.</creator><creator>Othberg, F.</creator><creator>Smedby, Ö.</creator><general>Informa UK Ltd</general><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Taylor & Francis</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>ADTPV</scope><scope>AOWAS</scope><scope>DG8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20060301</creationdate><title>Standardized Volume Rendering for Magnetic Resonance Angiography Measurements in the Abdominal Aorta</title><author>Persson, A. ; Brismar, T. B. ; Lundström, C. ; Dahlström, N. ; Othberg, F. ; Smedby, Ö.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c543t-b05c4d997943fab2a524cbcbe7c79a680a13ad4f4929dc6a969447fc324420ef3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2006</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>Angiography, Digital Subtraction</topic><topic>Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - pathology</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Cardiovascular system</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Gadolinium DTPA</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Imaging, Three-Dimensional</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Angiography - standards</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicin och hälsovetenskap</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>TECHNOLOGY</topic><topic>TEKNIKVETENSKAP</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Persson, A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Brismar, T. B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lundström, C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dahlström, N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Othberg, F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smedby, Ö.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>SwePub</collection><collection>SwePub Articles</collection><collection>SWEPUB Linköpings universitet</collection><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Persson, A.</au><au>Brismar, T. B.</au><au>Lundström, C.</au><au>Dahlström, N.</au><au>Othberg, F.</au><au>Smedby, Ö.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Standardized Volume Rendering for Magnetic Resonance Angiography Measurements in the Abdominal Aorta</atitle><jtitle>Acta radiologica (1987)</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Radiol</addtitle><date>2006-03-01</date><risdate>2006</risdate><volume>47</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>172</spage><epage>178</epage><pages>172-178</pages><issn>0284-1851</issn><issn>1600-0455</issn><eissn>1600-0455</eissn><coden>ACRAE3</coden><abstract>Purpose: To compare three methods for standardizing volume rendering technique (VRT) protocols by studying aortic diameter measurements in magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) datasets.
Material and Methods: Datasets from 20 patients previously examined with gadolinium-enhanced MRA and with digital subtraction angiography (DSA) for abdominal aortic aneurysm were retrospectively evaluated by three independent readers. The MRA datasets were viewed using VRT with three different standardized transfer functions: the percentile method (Pc-VRT), the maximum-likelihood method (ML-VRT), and the partial range histogram method (PRH-VRT). The aortic diameters obtained with these three methods were compared with freely chosen VRT parameters (F-VRT) and with maximum intensity projection (MIP) concerning inter-reader variability and agreement with the reference method DSA.
Results: F-VRT parameters and PRH-VRT gave significantly higher diameter values than DSA, whereas Pc-VRT gave significantly lower values than DSA. The highest interobserver variability was found for F-VRT parameters and MIP, and the lowest for Pc-VRT and PRH-VRT. All standardized VRT methods were significantly superior to both MIP and F-VRT in this respect. The agreement with DSA was best for PRH-VRT, which was the only method with a mean error below 1 mm and which also had the narrowest limits of agreement (95% of cases between 2.1 mm below and 3.1 mm above DSA).
Conclusion: All the standardized VRT methods compare favorably with MIP and VRT with freely selected parameters as regards interobserver variability. The partial range histogram method, although systematically overestimating vessel diameters, gives results closest to those of DSA.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>Informa UK Ltd</pub><pmid>16604964</pmid><doi>10.1080/02841850500445298</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0284-1851 |
ispartof | Acta radiologica (1987), 2006-03, Vol.47 (2), p.172-178 |
issn | 0284-1851 1600-0455 1600-0455 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_swepub_primary_oai_swepub_ki_se_576129 |
source | MEDLINE; Access via Taylor & Francis |
subjects | Analysis of Variance Angiography, Digital Subtraction Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal - pathology Biological and medical sciences Cardiovascular system Contrast Media Gadolinium DTPA Humans Imaging, Three-Dimensional Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Magnetic Resonance Angiography - standards Medical sciences Medicin och hälsovetenskap Observer Variation Radiodiagnosis. Nmr imagery. Nmr spectrometry Retrospective Studies TECHNOLOGY TEKNIKVETENSKAP |
title | Standardized Volume Rendering for Magnetic Resonance Angiography Measurements in the Abdominal Aorta |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-14T22%3A39%3A12IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_swepu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Standardized%20Volume%20Rendering%20for%20Magnetic%20Resonance%20Angiography%20Measurements%20in%20the%20Abdominal%20Aorta&rft.jtitle=Acta%20radiologica%20(1987)&rft.au=Persson,%20A.&rft.date=2006-03-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=172&rft.epage=178&rft.pages=172-178&rft.issn=0284-1851&rft.eissn=1600-0455&rft.coden=ACRAE3&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/02841850500445298&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_swepu%3E67852378%3C/proquest_swepu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=67852378&rft_id=info:pmid/16604964&rft_sage_id=10.1080_02841850500445298&rfr_iscdi=true |