Advanced

Sources of variability in quantification of cardiovascular magnetic resonance infarct size - reproducibility among three core laboratories

Klem, Igor; Heiberg, Einar LU ; Van Assche, Lowie; Parker, Michele A.; Kim, Han W.; Grizzard, John D.; Arheden, Håkan LU and Kim, Raymond J. (2017) In Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance 19(1).
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarct (AMI) size depicted by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used as an efficacy endpoint in randomized trials comparing AMI therapies. Infarct size is quantified using manual planimetry (MANUAL), visual scoring (VISUAL), or automated techniques using signal-intensity thresholding (AUTO). Although AUTO is considered the most reproducible, prior studies did not account for the subjective determination of endocardial/epicardial borders, which all methods require. For MANUAL and VISUAL, prior studies did not address how to treat intermediate signal intensities due to partial volume.

METHODS: To assess sources of variability, AMI size was measured in 30... (More)

BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarct (AMI) size depicted by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used as an efficacy endpoint in randomized trials comparing AMI therapies. Infarct size is quantified using manual planimetry (MANUAL), visual scoring (VISUAL), or automated techniques using signal-intensity thresholding (AUTO). Although AUTO is considered the most reproducible, prior studies did not account for the subjective determination of endocardial/epicardial borders, which all methods require. For MANUAL and VISUAL, prior studies did not address how to treat intermediate signal intensities due to partial volume.

METHODS: To assess sources of variability, AMI size was measured in 30 patients and 12 controls by 3 core-laboratories using 8 methods, each separated by more than 2 months time (n = 720 evaluations). The methods were: (1,2) AUTOSegment, AUTOFWHM (using Segment software or the full-width-at-half-maximum algorithm, respectively); (3,4) AUTO-UCSegment, AUTO-UCFWHM (user correction for endocardial border pixels, no-reflow, etc.); (5) MANUAL; (6) MANUAL-ISI (adjustment for intermediate signal-intensities); (7) VISUAL; (8) VISUAL-ISI.

RESULTS: Mean infarct size varied between 16.8% and 27.2% of LV mass depending on method. Even automated techniques with no user interaction for infarct borders resulted in significant within-patient variability given the need to subjectively trace endocardial/epicardial contours. The coefficient-of-variation (CV) was 10.6% and 14.6% for AUTOSegment and AUTOFWHM, respectively. For manual and visual categories, reproducibility was improved when intermediate signal-intensities were considered (MANUAL-ISI vs MANUAL: CV = 8.3% vs 14.4%; p = 0.03; VISUAL-ISI vs VISUAL: CV = 8.4% vs 10.9%; p = 0.01). For AUTO-UCSegment, MANUAL-ISI, and VISUAL-ISI (best technique in each category) within-patient variability due to the quantification method was less than 10% of total variability, and the required sample sizes for detecting a 5% absolute difference in infarct size were 62, 63, and 62 patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION: Among CMR core-laboratories, an important source of variability in infarct size quantification is the subjective delineation of endocardial/epicardial borders. When intermediate signal intensities are considered in manual planimetry and visual scoring, reproducibility and impact on sample size are similar to automated techniques.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
volume
19
issue
1
pages
1 pages
publisher
BioMed Central
external identifiers
  • scopus:85047942707
ISSN
1097-6647
DOI
10.1186/s12968-017-0378-y
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
5021cf12-dcac-4281-898b-ef37211692c1
date added to LUP
2018-06-12 15:57:12
date last changed
2018-11-21 21:40:18
@article{5021cf12-dcac-4281-898b-ef37211692c1,
  abstract     = {<p>BACKGROUND: Acute myocardial infarct (AMI) size depicted by late gadolinium enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is increasingly used as an efficacy endpoint in randomized trials comparing AMI therapies. Infarct size is quantified using manual planimetry (MANUAL), visual scoring (VISUAL), or automated techniques using signal-intensity thresholding (AUTO). Although AUTO is considered the most reproducible, prior studies did not account for the subjective determination of endocardial/epicardial borders, which all methods require. For MANUAL and VISUAL, prior studies did not address how to treat intermediate signal intensities due to partial volume.</p><p>METHODS: To assess sources of variability, AMI size was measured in 30 patients and 12 controls by 3 core-laboratories using 8 methods, each separated by more than 2 months time (n = 720 evaluations). The methods were: (1,2) AUTOSegment, AUTOFWHM (using Segment software or the full-width-at-half-maximum algorithm, respectively); (3,4) AUTO-UCSegment, AUTO-UCFWHM (user correction for endocardial border pixels, no-reflow, etc.); (5) MANUAL; (6) MANUAL-ISI (adjustment for intermediate signal-intensities); (7) VISUAL; (8) VISUAL-ISI.</p><p>RESULTS: Mean infarct size varied between 16.8% and 27.2% of LV mass depending on method. Even automated techniques with no user interaction for infarct borders resulted in significant within-patient variability given the need to subjectively trace endocardial/epicardial contours. The coefficient-of-variation (CV) was 10.6% and 14.6% for AUTOSegment and AUTOFWHM, respectively. For manual and visual categories, reproducibility was improved when intermediate signal-intensities were considered (MANUAL-ISI vs MANUAL: CV = 8.3% vs 14.4%; p = 0.03; VISUAL-ISI vs VISUAL: CV = 8.4% vs 10.9%; p = 0.01). For AUTO-UCSegment, MANUAL-ISI, and VISUAL-ISI (best technique in each category) within-patient variability due to the quantification method was less than 10% of total variability, and the required sample sizes for detecting a 5% absolute difference in infarct size were 62, 63, and 62 patients, respectively.</p><p>CONCLUSION: Among CMR core-laboratories, an important source of variability in infarct size quantification is the subjective delineation of endocardial/epicardial borders. When intermediate signal intensities are considered in manual planimetry and visual scoring, reproducibility and impact on sample size are similar to automated techniques.</p>},
  author       = {Klem, Igor and Heiberg, Einar and Van Assche, Lowie and Parker, Michele A. and Kim, Han W. and Grizzard, John D. and Arheden, Håkan and Kim, Raymond J.},
  issn         = {1097-6647},
  language     = {eng},
  month        = {08},
  number       = {1},
  pages        = {1},
  publisher    = {BioMed Central},
  series       = {Journal of cardiovascular magnetic resonance : official journal of the Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance},
  title        = {Sources of variability in quantification of cardiovascular magnetic resonance infarct size - reproducibility among three core laboratories},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12968-017-0378-y},
  volume       = {19},
  year         = {2017},
}