Carlos Bilreiro, Luisa Andrade, Rafael Henriques, Nuno Loução, Celso Matos, Noam Shemesh
{"title":"Diffusion tensor imaging and diffusion kurtosis imaging of the pancreas - feasibility, robustness and protocol comparison in a healthy population","authors":"Carlos Bilreiro, Luisa Andrade, Rafael Henriques, Nuno Loução, Celso Matos, Noam Shemesh","doi":"10.1007/s00261-025-04889-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><p>This study aims to determine the feasibility, image quality, intra-subject repeatability and inter-reader variability of Diffusion tensor (DTI) and Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) for pancreatic imaging using different protocols and report normative values in healthy individuals.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>Single-institution prospective study performed on healthy volunteers in a clinical 3T scanner, using two different protocols (6/16 diffusion directions). Acquisitions were repeated twice to assess intra-subject repeatability. To assess inter-reader variability, Mean diffusivity (MD), Axial diffusivity (AD), Radial diffusivity (RD), Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and Mean kurtosis (MK) values were extracted from segmented pancreas by two radiologists. A Likert scale was used by both readers to assess subjective image quality.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Twelve healthy volunteers were recruited for each MRI protocol. The 6 diffusion directions protocol was shorter: 7 min vs. 14 min (corresponding to 4 min vs. 7.5 min for a DTI only reconstruction). No differences in image quality were found between protocols. Only MK maps showed implausible estimates, leading to the exclusion of median 16% and 17.7% pixels for the 6- and 16-direction protocols, respectively. Intra-subject repeatability was determined with negligible coefficients of repeatability for DTI; however, MK presented slightly higher values. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for all maps (ICC > 0.9).</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>DTI and DKI of the pancreas are feasible in clinical settings, with excellent inter-observer agreement and good image quality. Intra-subject repeatability is excellent for DTI, but some variability was observed with DKI. A 6-directions protocol may be preferred due to faster acquisition without quantitatively compromising estimates. MK inaccuracies prompt further research for improving artifact correction.</p><h3>Graphical abstract</h3><div><figure><div><div><picture><source><img></source></picture></div></div></figure></div></div>","PeriodicalId":7126,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Radiology","volume":"50 10","pages":"4563 - 4574"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00261-025-04889-w.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00261-025-04889-w","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
This study aims to determine the feasibility, image quality, intra-subject repeatability and inter-reader variability of Diffusion tensor (DTI) and Diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) for pancreatic imaging using different protocols and report normative values in healthy individuals.
Methods
Single-institution prospective study performed on healthy volunteers in a clinical 3T scanner, using two different protocols (6/16 diffusion directions). Acquisitions were repeated twice to assess intra-subject repeatability. To assess inter-reader variability, Mean diffusivity (MD), Axial diffusivity (AD), Radial diffusivity (RD), Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and Mean kurtosis (MK) values were extracted from segmented pancreas by two radiologists. A Likert scale was used by both readers to assess subjective image quality.
Results
Twelve healthy volunteers were recruited for each MRI protocol. The 6 diffusion directions protocol was shorter: 7 min vs. 14 min (corresponding to 4 min vs. 7.5 min for a DTI only reconstruction). No differences in image quality were found between protocols. Only MK maps showed implausible estimates, leading to the exclusion of median 16% and 17.7% pixels for the 6- and 16-direction protocols, respectively. Intra-subject repeatability was determined with negligible coefficients of repeatability for DTI; however, MK presented slightly higher values. Inter-reader agreement was excellent for all maps (ICC > 0.9).
Conclusions
DTI and DKI of the pancreas are feasible in clinical settings, with excellent inter-observer agreement and good image quality. Intra-subject repeatability is excellent for DTI, but some variability was observed with DKI. A 6-directions protocol may be preferred due to faster acquisition without quantitatively compromising estimates. MK inaccuracies prompt further research for improving artifact correction.
期刊介绍：
Abdominal Radiology seeks to meet the professional needs of the abdominal radiologist by publishing clinically pertinent original, review and practice related articles on the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tracts and abdominal interventional and radiologic procedures. Case reports are generally not accepted unless they are the first report of a new disease or condition, or part of a special solicited section.
Reasons to Publish Your Article in Abdominal Radiology:
· Official journal of the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR)
· Published in Cooperation with:
European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR)
European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)
Asian Society of Abdominal Radiology (ASAR)
· Efficient handling and Expeditious review
· Author feedback is provided in a mentoring style
· Global readership
· Readers can earn CME credits
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
