Optimal Magnetic Resonance Sequence for Assessment of Central Cartilage Tumor Scalloping.

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging Pub Date : 2024-08-01 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1788607
Kapil K Shirodkar, Nathan Jenko, Christine Azzopardi, Jennifer Murphy, Anish Patel, Steven L James, Arthur Mark Davies, Rajesh Botchu
{"title":"Optimal Magnetic Resonance Sequence for Assessment of Central Cartilage Tumor Scalloping.","authors":"Kapil K Shirodkar, Nathan Jenko, Christine Azzopardi, Jennifer Murphy, Anish Patel, Steven L James, Arthur Mark Davies, Rajesh Botchu","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1788607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is key in evaluating central cartilage tumors. The BACTIP (Birmingham Atypical Cartilaginous Tumour Imaging Protocol) protocol assesses central cartilage tumor risk based on the tumor size and degree of endosteal scalloping on MRI. It provides a management protocol for assessment, follow-up, or referral of central cartilage tumors. <b>Objectives</b>  Our study compared four MRI sequences: T1-weighted (T1-w), fluid sensitive (Short Tau Inversion Recovery (STIR)- weighted, STIR-w), and grayscale inversions (T1-w GSI and short tau inversion recovery [STIR] GSI) to see how reliably endosteal scalloping was detected. <b>Materials and Methods</b>  Two senior consultant musculoskeletal radiologists with experience reviewed randomly selected 60 representative central cartilage tumor cases with varying degree of endosteal scalloping to reflect a spectrum of BACTIP pathologies. The endosteal scalloping was graded as per the definition of BACTIP A, B, and C. They agreed on a consensus BACTIP grade for each of the 240 key images (60 cases × 4 sequences), which was considered the final \"consensus\" BACTIP grade. These 240 images were then randomized into a test set and given to two fellowship-trained consultant musculoskeletal radiologists for analysis. They assigned a BACTIP grade to each of the 240 selected images while being blinded to the final \"consensus\" BACTIP grade. The training set was further subdivided into three groups based on the MR image quality (good quality, average quality, and poor quality) to ascertain if the quality of the acquired images influenced intraobserver and interobserver agreements on the BACTIP grading. The two observers were blinded to the grade assigned to the image quality. <b>Results</b>  Linearly weighted kappa analysis was performed to measure the agreement between the BACTIP grading answers by two observers and the \"consensus\" BACTIP grading answers, as well as the BACTIP grading agreement between the two observers themselves. The analysis revealed that T1-w and STIR-w sequences demonstrated more consistent and higher agreement across different image qualities. However, the T1-w GSI and STIR-w GSI sequences exhibited lower agreement, particularly for poor-quality images. T1-w imaging demonstrated substantial agreement between BACTIP gradings for poor-quality images, suggesting potential resilience of T1-w sequence in challenging imaging conditions. <b>Conclusion</b>  T1-w imaging is the best sequence for BACTIP grading of endosteal scalloping, followed by fluid-sensitive STIR sequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":51597,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging","volume":"35 1","pages":"59-66"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11651851/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1788607","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background  Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is key in evaluating central cartilage tumors. The BACTIP (Birmingham Atypical Cartilaginous Tumour Imaging Protocol) protocol assesses central cartilage tumor risk based on the tumor size and degree of endosteal scalloping on MRI. It provides a management protocol for assessment, follow-up, or referral of central cartilage tumors. Objectives  Our study compared four MRI sequences: T1-weighted (T1-w), fluid sensitive (Short Tau Inversion Recovery (STIR)- weighted, STIR-w), and grayscale inversions (T1-w GSI and short tau inversion recovery [STIR] GSI) to see how reliably endosteal scalloping was detected. Materials and Methods  Two senior consultant musculoskeletal radiologists with experience reviewed randomly selected 60 representative central cartilage tumor cases with varying degree of endosteal scalloping to reflect a spectrum of BACTIP pathologies. The endosteal scalloping was graded as per the definition of BACTIP A, B, and C. They agreed on a consensus BACTIP grade for each of the 240 key images (60 cases × 4 sequences), which was considered the final "consensus" BACTIP grade. These 240 images were then randomized into a test set and given to two fellowship-trained consultant musculoskeletal radiologists for analysis. They assigned a BACTIP grade to each of the 240 selected images while being blinded to the final "consensus" BACTIP grade. The training set was further subdivided into three groups based on the MR image quality (good quality, average quality, and poor quality) to ascertain if the quality of the acquired images influenced intraobserver and interobserver agreements on the BACTIP grading. The two observers were blinded to the grade assigned to the image quality. Results  Linearly weighted kappa analysis was performed to measure the agreement between the BACTIP grading answers by two observers and the "consensus" BACTIP grading answers, as well as the BACTIP grading agreement between the two observers themselves. The analysis revealed that T1-w and STIR-w sequences demonstrated more consistent and higher agreement across different image qualities. However, the T1-w GSI and STIR-w GSI sequences exhibited lower agreement, particularly for poor-quality images. T1-w imaging demonstrated substantial agreement between BACTIP gradings for poor-quality images, suggesting potential resilience of T1-w sequence in challenging imaging conditions. Conclusion  T1-w imaging is the best sequence for BACTIP grading of endosteal scalloping, followed by fluid-sensitive STIR sequences.

评价中央软骨肿瘤扇形的最佳磁共振序列。
磁共振成像(MRI)是评估中央软骨肿瘤的关键。BACTIP(伯明翰非典型软骨肿瘤成像方案)方案根据肿瘤的大小和MRI上的骨内膜扇贝程度来评估中枢软骨肿瘤的风险。它为中央软骨肿瘤的评估、随访或转诊提供了一个管理方案。我们的研究比较了四种MRI序列:t1加权(T1-w),流体敏感(短Tau反转恢复(STIR)加权,STIR-w)和灰度反转(T1-w GSI和短Tau反转恢复[STIR] GSI),以了解内层扇贝检测的可靠性。材料与方法2名经验丰富的肌肉骨骼放射科高级顾问医师随机选取60例具有代表性的中央软骨肿瘤患者,并伴有不同程度的骨内扇贝,以反映BACTIP病理谱。根据BACTIP A、B和c的定义对髓内扇贝进行分级。他们对240张关键图像(60例× 4序列)中的每一张都达成了一致的BACTIP分级,这被认为是最终的“共识”BACTIP分级。然后将这240张图像随机分成一个测试集,交给两位接受过奖学金培训的肌肉骨骼放射科顾问进行分析。他们给240张选定的图片分配了一个BACTIP等级,同时对最终的“共识”BACTIP等级视而不见。根据MR图像质量进一步将训练集细分为三组(高质量、平均质量和差质量),以确定获取的图像质量是否影响观察者内部和观察者之间对BACTIP分级的一致性。这两名观察者不知道图像质量的等级。结果采用线性加权kappa分析来衡量两名观察员的BACTIP评分答案与“共识”BACTIP评分答案之间的一致性,以及两名观察员之间的BACTIP评分一致性。结果表明,T1-w和stirw序列在不同的图像质量下具有更高的一致性和一致性。然而,T1-w GSI和stirw GSI序列的一致性较低,特别是对于质量较差的图像。T1-w成像显示,对于质量较差的图像,BACTIP分级之间有很大的一致性,这表明T1-w序列在具有挑战性的成像条件下具有潜在的弹性。结论T1-w序列是扇贝膜内BACTIP分级的最佳序列,其次是液体敏感的STIR序列。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging
Indian Journal of Radiology and Imaging RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
115
审稿时长
45 weeks
期刊介绍: Information not localized
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信