Cargando…

Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours

BACKGROUND: High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sourc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suinesiaputra, Avan, Bluemke, David A., Cowan, Brett R., Friedrich, Matthias G., Kramer, Christopher M., Kwong, Raymond, Plein, Sven, Schulz-Menger, Jeanette, Westenberg, Jos J. M., Young, Alistair A., Nagel, Eike
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26215273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9
_version_ 1782383197774938112
author Suinesiaputra, Avan
Bluemke, David A.
Cowan, Brett R.
Friedrich, Matthias G.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Kwong, Raymond
Plein, Sven
Schulz-Menger, Jeanette
Westenberg, Jos J. M.
Young, Alistair A.
Nagel, Eike
author_facet Suinesiaputra, Avan
Bluemke, David A.
Cowan, Brett R.
Friedrich, Matthias G.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Kwong, Raymond
Plein, Sven
Schulz-Menger, Jeanette
Westenberg, Jos J. M.
Young, Alistair A.
Nagel, Eike
author_sort Suinesiaputra, Avan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sources of variation between many centers, and provide a multi-center consensus ground truth dataset for benchmarking automated processing tools and facilitating training for new readers in CMR analysis. METHODS: Seven independent expert readers, representing seven experienced CMR core laboratories, analyzed fifteen cine CMR data sets in accordance with their standard operating protocols and SCMR guidelines. Consensus contours were generated for each image according to a statistical optimization scheme that maximized contour placement agreement between readers. RESULTS: Reader-consensus agreement was better than inter-reader agreement (end-diastolic volume 14.7 ml vs 15.2–28.4 ml; end-systolic volume 13.2 ml vs 14.0–21.5 ml; LV mass 17.5 g vs 20.2–34.5 g; ejection fraction 4.2 % vs 4.6–7.5 %). Compared with consensus contours, readers were very consistent (small variability across cases within each reader), but bias varied between readers due to differences in contouring protocols at each center. Although larger contour differences were found at the apex and base, the main effect on volume was due to small but consistent differences in the position of the contours in all regions of the LV. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-center consensus dataset was established for the purposes of benchmarking and training. Achieving consensus on contour drawing protocol between centers before analysis, or bias correction after analysis, is required when collating multi-center results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4517503
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45175032015-08-03 Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours Suinesiaputra, Avan Bluemke, David A. Cowan, Brett R. Friedrich, Matthias G. Kramer, Christopher M. Kwong, Raymond Plein, Sven Schulz-Menger, Jeanette Westenberg, Jos J. M. Young, Alistair A. Nagel, Eike J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Research BACKGROUND: High reproducibility of LV mass and volume measurement from cine cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been shown within single centers. However, the extent to which contours may vary from center to center, due to different training protocols, is unknown. We aimed to quantify sources of variation between many centers, and provide a multi-center consensus ground truth dataset for benchmarking automated processing tools and facilitating training for new readers in CMR analysis. METHODS: Seven independent expert readers, representing seven experienced CMR core laboratories, analyzed fifteen cine CMR data sets in accordance with their standard operating protocols and SCMR guidelines. Consensus contours were generated for each image according to a statistical optimization scheme that maximized contour placement agreement between readers. RESULTS: Reader-consensus agreement was better than inter-reader agreement (end-diastolic volume 14.7 ml vs 15.2–28.4 ml; end-systolic volume 13.2 ml vs 14.0–21.5 ml; LV mass 17.5 g vs 20.2–34.5 g; ejection fraction 4.2 % vs 4.6–7.5 %). Compared with consensus contours, readers were very consistent (small variability across cases within each reader), but bias varied between readers due to differences in contouring protocols at each center. Although larger contour differences were found at the apex and base, the main effect on volume was due to small but consistent differences in the position of the contours in all regions of the LV. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-center consensus dataset was established for the purposes of benchmarking and training. Achieving consensus on contour drawing protocol between centers before analysis, or bias correction after analysis, is required when collating multi-center results. BioMed Central 2015-07-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4517503/ /pubmed/26215273 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9 Text en © Suinesiaputra et al. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Suinesiaputra, Avan
Bluemke, David A.
Cowan, Brett R.
Friedrich, Matthias G.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Kwong, Raymond
Plein, Sven
Schulz-Menger, Jeanette
Westenberg, Jos J. M.
Young, Alistair A.
Nagel, Eike
Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
title Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
title_full Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
title_fullStr Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
title_full_unstemmed Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
title_short Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
title_sort quantification of lv function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26215273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9
work_keys_str_mv AT suinesiaputraavan quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT bluemkedavida quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT cowanbrettr quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT friedrichmatthiasg quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT kramerchristopherm quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT kwongraymond quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT pleinsven quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT schulzmengerjeanette quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT westenbergjosjm quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT youngalistaira quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours
AT nageleike quantificationoflvfunctionandmassbycardiovascularmagneticresonancemulticentervariabilityandconsensuscontours