Abstract

Mayo Imaging Classification (MIC) for predicting future kidney growth in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients is calculated from a single MRI/CT scan assuming exponential kidney volume growth and height-adjusted total kidney volume at birth to be 150 mL/m. However, when multiple scans are available, how this information should be combined to improve prediction accuracy is unclear. Herein, we studied ADPKD subjects (n=36\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$n = 36$$\\end{document}) with 8+ years imaging follow-up (mean = 11 years) to establish ground truth kidney growth trajectory. MIC annual kidney growth rate predictions were compared to ground truth as well as 1- and 2-parameter least squares fitting. The annualized mean absolute error in MIC for predicting total kidney volume growth rate was 2.1%±2%\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$2.1\\% \\pm 2\\%$$\\end{document} compared to 1.1%±1%\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$1.1\\% \\pm 1\\%$$\\end{document} (p=0.002\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$p = 0.002$$\\end{document}) for a 2-parameter fit to the same exponential growth curve used for MIC when 4 measurements were available or 1.4%±1%\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$1.4\\% \\pm 1\\%$$\\end{document} (p=0.01\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$p = 0.01$$\\end{document}) with 3 measurements averaging together with MIC. On univariate analysis, male sex (p=0.05\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$p = 0.05$$\\end{document}) and PKD2 mutation (p=0.04\\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \\usepackage{amsmath} \\usepackage{wasysym} \\usepackage{amsfonts} \\usepackage{amssymb} \\usepackage{amsbsy} \\usepackage{mathrsfs} \\usepackage{upgreek} \\setlength{\\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \\begin{document}$$p = 0.04$$\\end{document}) were associated with poorer MIC performance. In ADPKD patients with 3 or more CT/MRI scans, 2-parameter least squares fitting predicted kidney volume growth rate better than MIC, especially in males and with PKD2 mutations where MIC was less accurate.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.