Cargando…
Evaluation of the INTERPRET decision-support system: can it improve the diagnostic value of magnetic resonance spectroscopy of the brain?
PURPOSE: We evaluated in a clinical setting the INTERPRET decision-support system (DSS), a software generated to aid in MRS analysis to achieve a specific diagnosis for brain lesions. METHODS: The material consisted of 100 examinations of focal intracranial lesions with confirmed diagnoses. MRS was...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6336758/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30443796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00234-018-2129-7 |
Sumario: | PURPOSE: We evaluated in a clinical setting the INTERPRET decision-support system (DSS), a software generated to aid in MRS analysis to achieve a specific diagnosis for brain lesions. METHODS: The material consisted of 100 examinations of focal intracranial lesions with confirmed diagnoses. MRS was obtained at 1.5 T using TE 20–30 ms. Data were processed with the LCModel for conventional analysis. The INTERPRET DSS 3.1. was used to obtain specific diagnoses. MRI and MRS were reviewed by one interpreter. DSS analysis was made by another interpreter, in 80 cases by two interpreters. The diagnoses were compared with the definitive diagnoses. For comparisons between DSS, conventional MRS analysis, and MRI, the diagnoses were categorised: high-grade tumour, low-grade tumour, non-neoplastic lesion. RESULTS: Interobserver agreement in choosing the diagnosis from the INTERPRET database was 75%. The diagnosis was correct in 38/100 cases, incorrect in 57 cases. No good match was found in 5/100 cases. The diagnostic category was correct with DSS/conventional MRS/MRI in 67/58/52 cases, indeterminate in 5/8/20 cases, incorrect in 28/34/28 cases. Results with DSS were not significantly better than with conventional MRS analysis. All definitive diagnoses did not exist in the INTERPRET database. In the 61 adult patients with the diagnosis included in the database, DSS/conventional MRS/MRI yielded a correct diagnosis category in 48/32/29 cases (DSS vs conventional MRS: p = 0.002, DSS vs MRI: p = 0.0004). CONCLUSION: Use of the INTERPRET DSS did not improve MRS categorisation of the lesions in the unselected clinical cases. In adult patients with lesions existing in the INTERPRET database, DSS improved the results, which indicates the potential of this software with an extended database. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00234-018-2129-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
---|