Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Fig 1.
Total number of brain metastases detected. No significant difference was found among the total number of metastases detected using CUBE, nC-MIP, oC-MIP, and IR-FSPGR-BRAVO (P = .062) using 1-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni adjustment. The orange line denotes the total number of ground truth lesions (n = 308).
- Fig 2.
Mean time for interpretation. A, Both readers had significantly reduced interpretation time using nC-MIP and oC-MIP compared with CUBE and IR-FSPGR-BRAVO, saving at least 50 seconds per case (on average). B, The use of nC-MIP and oC-MIP with the option to cross-reference an equivocal lesion to the source images (nC-MIP+XR and oC-MIP+XR, respectively) did not result in a significant change in interpretation time compared with the use of nC-MIP or oC-MIP alone. However, time for interpretation for all CUBE MIPs was significantly reduced compared with CUBE. Error bars represent the SD. One-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni adjustment. Triple asterisks indicate P < .001; ns, no significance.
- Fig 3.
Enhancing cerebral metastases in a 74-year-old male with metastatic tongue squamous cell carcinoma. Postcontrast T1-weighted CUBE (A), nonoverlapping CUBE MIP (nC-MIP) (B), overlapping CUBE MIP (oC-MIP) (C), and IR-FSPGR-BRAVO (D) images demonstrate enhancing metastatic lesions. The lesions appear most conspicuous with CUBE MIPs (B and C). The contrast-to-noise ratio of lesions was highest for oC-MIP (C).
- Fig 4.
Comparison between nonoverlapping and overlapping CUBE MIP. A small 3-mm metastasis in a 57-year-old woman with non-small cell lung cancer is seen across 4 different slices with oC-MIP but is only identified on 2 slices with nC-MIP.
Tables
- Table 1:
Interrater agreement using the Cohen κ coefficient for T1-weighted CUBE, nC-MIP, oC-MIP, and IR-FSPGR-BRAVO
Image Type κ 95% Confidence Interval Agreement CUBE 0.235 0.024–0.447 Fair nC-MIP 0.222 0.069–0.374 Fair oC-MIP 0.598 0.371–0.825 Moderate IR-FSPGR-BRAVO 0.445 0.290–0.599 Moderate - Table 2:
CNR of the smallest and largest metastases on CUBE, nC-MIP, oC-MIP, IR-FSPGR-BRAVO, and overlapping IR-FSPGR-BRAVO MIPa
Image Type CNR of the Smallest Lesion (<4 mm) CNR of the Largest Lesion CUBE 2.35 ± 2.0 2.49 ± 1.84 nC-MIP 1.55 ± 0.53 2.69 ± 0.93 oC-MIP 2.35 ± 1.64 3.23 ± 1.92 IR-FSPGR-BRAVO 0.62 ± 0.39 1.45 ± 1.14 IR-FSPGR-BRAVO MIP 0.90 ± 0.78 1.69 ± 1.14 ↵a Numbers are means.
- Table 3:
Sensitivity, number of false-negatives, number of false-positives, and number of discrepant lesions (FN + FP) per case for CUBE, nC-MIP, oC-MIP, IR-FSPGR-BRAVO, and non-overlapping and overlapping CUBE MIPsa
Reader 1 Reader 2 % Sensitivity Mean FN Mean FP Mean Discrepancy % Sensitivity Mean FN Mean FP Mean Discrepancy CUBE 97.1 ± 14.8 0.08 ± 0.28 0.31 ± 0.63 0.40 ± 0.65 93.0 ± 16.8 0.38 ± 0.70 0.38 ± 0.82 0.75 ± 0.93 nC-MIP 94.7 ± 20.4 0.08 ± 0.28 0.58 ± 0.98 0.65 ± 0.96 90.2 ± 16.8 0.60 ± 0.96 0.71 ± 1.98 1.31 ± 2.00 oC-MIP 95.8 ± 15.4 0.19 ± 0.49 0.54 ± 0.92 0.73 ± 0.94 95.8 ± 15.4 0.19 ± 0.50 0.33 ± 0.69 0.75 ± 0.93 BRAVO 91.5 ± 17.0 0.58 ± 0.99 0.21 ± 0.50 0.79 ± 0.99 89.0 ± 19.5 0.85 ± 1.49 0.31 ± 0.59 1.17 ± 1.42 nC-MIP + XR 95.5 ± 9.8 0.33 ± 0.66 0.25 ± 0.70 0.58 ± 0.87 91.2 ± 12.3 0.67 ± 0.93 0.29 ± 0.74 0.95 ± 1.01 oC-MIP + XR 96.6 ± 7.3 0.29 ± 0.62 0.21 ± 0.46 0.68 ± 0.96 94.8 ± 12.3 0.38 ± 0.79 0.23 ± 0.47 0.60 ± 0.82 Note:—FN indicates false-negative; FP, false-positive.
↵a With the option to cross-reference a lesion to the source images (nC-MIP+XR and oC-MIP+XR, respectively) for both readers. Numbers are means.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- No citing articles found.