Reproducibility study of intravoxel incoherent motion and apparent diffusion coefficient parameters in normal pancreas

Background: The consistency of pancreatic apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameter values across different magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) devices significantly impacts the patient's diagnosis and treatment.

Aim: To explore consistency in image quality, ADC values, and IVIM parameter values among different MRI devices in pancreatic examinations.

Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the local ethics committee, and informed consent was obtained from all participants. In total, 22 healthy volunteers (10 males and 12 females) aged 24-61 years (mean, 28.9 ± 2.3 years) underwent pancreatic diffusion-weighted imaging using 3.0T MRI equipment from three vendors. Two independent observers subjectively scored image quality and measured the pancreas's overall ADC values and signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs). Subsequently, regions of interest (ROIs) were delineated for the IVIM parameters (true diffusion coefficient, pseudo-diffusion coefficient, and perfusion fraction) using post-processing software. These ROIs were on the head, body, and tail of the pancrease. The subjective image ratings were assessed using the kappa consistency test. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and mixed linear models were used to evaluate each device's quantitative parameter values. Finally, a pairwise analysis of IVIM parameter values across each device was performed using Bland-Altman plots.

Results: The Kappa value for the subjective ratings of the different observers was 0.776 (P < 0.05). The ICC values for inter-observer and intra-observer agreements for the quantitative parameters were 0.803 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.684-0.880] and 0.883 (95%CI: 0.760-0.945), respectively (P < 0.05). The ICCs for the SNR between different devices was comparable (P > 0.05), and the ICCs for the ADC values from different devices were 0.870, 0.707, and 0.808, respectively (P < 0.05). Notably, only a few statistically significant inter-device agreements were observed for different IVIM parameters, and among those, the ICC values were generally low. The mixed linear model results indicated differences (P < 0.05) in the f-value for the pancreas head, D-value for the pancreas body, and D-value for the pancreas tail obtained using different MRI machines. The Bland-Altman plots showed significant variability at some data points.

Conclusion: ADC values are consistent among different devices, but the IVIM parameters' repeatability is moderate. Therefore, the variability in the IVIM parameter values may be associated with using different MRI machines. Thus, caution should be exercised when using IVIM parameter values to assess the pancreas.