Automated Color-Coding of Lesion Changes in Contrast-Enhanced 3D T1-Weighted Sequences for MRI Follow-up of Brain Metastases

Article Figures & Data

Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIG 1.
Inclusion and exclusion of study subjects.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIG 2.
Examples of the automated coregistration of follow-up examinations and color-coding of longitudinal changes in contrast-enhanced, T1-weighted 3D sequences.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIG 3.
Diagnostic certainty of both readers regarding decision-making in the conventional approach and the automated coregistration and color-coding reading approach. ACC indicates automated color-coding.
Download figure
Open in new tab
Download powerpoint
FIG 4.
Reading time was significantly reduced in the automated coregistration and color-coding approach in comparison with the conventional approach. However, the longer loading and processing time required for the automated coregistration of 3D sequences led to a longer overall assessment time for this approach. ACC indicates automated color-coding.

Table 1:

Detailed scanning parameters of the Ingenia and Achieva scanners^{^a}

Parameter	Ingenia 3T^{^b}	Ingenia 1.5T^{^b}	Achieva 3T^{^b}	Achieva 1.5T^{^b}
FOV (mm)	512 × 512	384 × 384	480 × 480	288 × 288
Matrix	280 × 278	244 × 246	412 × 414	256 × 256
Section thickness (mm)	0.9	1.6	1.2	1.6
Spacing	0.48	0.8	0.6	0.8
TR (ms)	9.00	25.00	9.35	25.00
TE (ms)	4	7.86	4.68	7.97

Table 2:

Detailed scanning parameters of the Intera, Panorama and Avanto scanners^{^a}

Parameter	Intera 1.5T^{^b}	Panorama 1T^{^b}	Avanto 1.5T^{^c}
FOV (mm)	448 × 448	512 × 512	256 × 256
Matrix	224 × 223	292 × 290	256 × 246
Section thickness (mm)	2	1.6	1
Spacing	1	0.8	0.98
TR (ms)	18.01	25.00	19.00
TE (ms)	10.1	9.2	2.91

Table 3:

Rate of correctly classified diagnoses for each disease condition comparing the conventional reading and the reading with automated coregistration

	Conventional Reading	Reading with Automated Coregistration	P Value
Follow-up pairs with disease progression	81.7% (49/60)	93.3% (56/60)	.07
Follow-up pairs with disease regression	81.7% (49/60)	100.0% (60/60)	.003
Follow-up pairs with mixed changes	50.0% (31/62)	88.7% (55/62)	<.001
Follow-up pairs with stable disease	83.3% (50/60)	83.3% (50/60)	.77
All disease conditions	74.0% (179/242)	91.3% (221/242)	<.001

Table 4:

Information on numbers and average sizes of lesions in included patients