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

View/ Open
Author
Suinesiaputra, Avan
Bluemke, David A.
Cowan, Brett R.
Friedrich, Matthias G.
Kramer, Christopher M.
Plein, Sven
Schulz-Menger, Jeanette
Westenberg, Jos J. M.
Young, Alistair A.
Nagel, Eike
Note: Order does not necessarily reflect citation order of authors.
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Suinesiaputra, A., D. A. Bluemke, B. R. Cowan, M. G. Friedrich, C. M. Kramer, R. Kwong, S. Plein, et al. 2015. “Quantification of LV function and mass by cardiovascular magnetic resonance: multi-center variability and consensus contours.” Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 17 (1): 63. doi:10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-015-0170-9.Abstract
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.Other Sources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4517503/pdf/Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:21462232
Collections
- HMS Scholarly Articles [17843]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)