Interobserver Variation of the Bolus-and-Burst Method for Pancreatic Perfusion with Dynamic – Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound

PURPOSE Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound (DCE-US) can be used for calculating organ perfusion. By combining bolus injection with burst replenishment, the actual mean transit time (MTT) can be estimated. Blood volume (BV) can be obtained by scaling the data to a vessel on the imaging plane. The study aim was to test interobserver agreement for repeated recordings using the same ultrasound scanner and agreement between results on two different scanner systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS Ten patients under evaluation for exocrine pancreatic failure were included. Each patient was scanned two times on a GE Logiq E9 scanner, by two different observers, and once on a Philips IU22 scanner, after a bolus of 1.5 ml Sonovue. A 60-second recording of contrast enhancement was performed before the burst and the scan continued for another 30 s for reperfusion. We performed data analysis using MATLAB-based DCE-US software. An artery in the same depth as the region of interest (ROI) was used for scaling. The measurements were compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland Altman plots. RESULTS The interobserver agreement on the Logiq E9 for MTT (ICC=0.83, confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.96) was excellent. There was poor agreement for MTT between the Logiq E9 and the IU22 (ICC=-0.084, CI -0.68-0.58). The interobserver agreement for blood volume measurements was excellent on the Logiq E9 (ICC=0.9286, CI 0.7250-0.98) and between scanners (ICC=0.86, CI=0.50-0.97). CONCLUSION Interobserver agreement was excellent using the same scanner for both parameters and between scanners for BV, but the comparison between two scanners did not yield acceptable agreement for MTT. This was probably due to incomplete bursting of bubbles in some of the recordings on the IU22.

[1]  D O Cosgrove,et al.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: a review of sources of variability , 2011, Interface Focus.

[2]  N. Lassau,et al.  In vitro evaluation of the impact of ultrasound scanner settings and contrast bolus volume on time-intensity curves. , 2012, Ultrasonics.

[3]  Sarah Parisot,et al.  Estimation of intra-operator variability in perfusion parameter measurements using DCE-US. , 2011, World journal of radiology.

[4]  E. Leen,et al.  Perfusion quantification using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the impact of dynamic range and gain on time-intensity curves. , 2011, Ultrasonics.

[5]  F. Zink,et al.  Comparison of Two High-End Ultrasound Systems for Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Quantification of Mural Microvascularity in Crohn’s Disease , 2015, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[6]  Klaus D. Tönnies,et al.  Semi-automatic motion compensation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound images from abdominal organs for perfusion analysis , 2015, Comput. Biol. Medicine.

[7]  M. Arditi,et al.  In-vivo perfusion quantification by contrast ultrasound: Validation of the use of linearized video data vs. raw RF data , 2008, 2008 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium.

[8]  Radovan Jirik,et al.  Parametric ultrasound perfusion analysis combining bolus tracking and replenishment , 2012, 2012 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium.

[9]  Odd Helge Gilja,et al.  Blind deconvolution in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and ultrasound , 2014, 2014 36th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society.

[10]  O. Gilja,et al.  Transabdominal ultrasonography of the pancreas: basic and new aspects , 2011 .

[11]  S. Ashley,et al.  Endoscopic measurement of pancreatic tissue perfusion in patients with chronic pancreatitis and control patients. , 2000, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[12]  Radovan Jirik,et al.  Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound comparison between inflammatory and fibrotic lesions in patients with Crohn's disease. , 2013, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[13]  Nathalie Lassau,et al.  Validation of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Predicting Outcomes of Antiangiogenic Therapy for Solid Tumors , 2014, Investigative radiology.

[14]  Ross Williams,et al.  Impact of Acquisition Method and Region of Interest Placement on Inter-observer Agreement and Measurement of Tumor Response to Targeted Therapy Using Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. , 2016, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[15]  L Barozzi,et al.  The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications , 2011, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[16]  C. Dietrich,et al.  An EFSUMB Introduction into Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (DCE-US) for Quantification of Tumour Perfusion , 2012, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[17]  P. Burns,et al.  The lognormal perfusion model for disruption replenishment measurements of blood flow: in vivo validation. , 2011, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[18]  Reinhold Muller,et al.  Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced Ultrasound for Quantification of Tissue Perfusion , 2015, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[19]  Charles Tremblay-Darveau,et al.  Dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound for therapy monitoring. , 2015, European journal of radiology.

[20]  Ingrid Leguerney,et al.  Assessment of Quantitative Perfusion Parameters by Dynamic Contrast‐Enhanced Sonography Using a Deconvolution Method , 2012, Journal of ultrasound in medicine : official journal of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.

[21]  R. Kolar,et al.  Ultrasound perfusion analysis combining bolus-tracking and burst-replenishment , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency Control.