Multi-site, multi-platform comparison of MRI T1 measurement using the system phantom
| Autor: | Thomas L. Chenevert, Sachin Jambawalikar, Kim M. Cecil, Kathryn E. Keenan, Peng Hu, Wilburn E. Reddick, Michael Z. Liu, Andrew Dienstfrey, Pottumarthi V. Prasad, Stephen E. Russek, Lawrence H. Schwartz, Amita Shukla-Dave, Zydrunas Gimbutas, David Aramburu Nunez, Junyu Guo, Jie Zheng, Amaresh Shridhar Konar, Karl F. Stupic, Michael A. Boss, Edward F. Jackson |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2021 |
| Předmět: |
Scanner
Computer science Economics Imaging Techniques Blastoma Science Social Sciences Research and Analysis Methods Imaging phantom Diagnostic Radiology Malignant Tumors Flip angle Reference Values Diagnostic Medicine medicine Medicine and Health Sciences Relaxation Time Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Humans Relaxation (Physics) Neurological Tumors Reproducibility Measurement Multidisciplinary Vendors medicine.diagnostic_test Phantoms Imaging Radiology and Imaging Physics Commerce Reproducibility of Results Cancers and Neoplasms Magnetic resonance imaging Repeatability Glioma Magnetic Resonance Imaging Oncology Neurology Physical Sciences Medicine NIST Engineering and Technology Phantom reference Glioblastoma Multiforme Biomedical engineering Research Article |
| Zdroj: | PLoS ONE PLoS ONE, Vol 16, Iss 6, p e0252966 (2021) |
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |
| Popis: | Recent innovations in quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurement methods have led to improvements in accuracy, repeatability, and acquisition speed, and have prompted renewed interest to reevaluate the medical value of quantitative T1. The purpose of this study was to determine the bias and reproducibility of T1 measurements in a variety of MRI systems with an eye toward assessing the feasibility of applying diagnostic threshold T1 measurement across multiple clinical sites. We used the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) system phantom to assess variations of T1 measurements, using a slow, reference standard inversion recovery sequence and a rapid, commonly-available variable flip angle sequence, across MRI systems at 1.5 tesla (T) (two vendors, with number of MRI systems n = 9) and 3 T (three vendors, n = 18). We compared the T1 measurements from inversion recovery and variable flip angle scans to ISMRM/NIST phantom reference values using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to test for statistical differences between T1 measurements grouped according to MRI scanner manufacturers and/or static field strengths. The inversion recovery method had minor over- and under-estimations compared to the NMR-measured T1 values at both 1.5 T and 3 T. Variable flip angle measurements had substantially greater deviations from the NMR-measured T1 values than the inversion recovery measurements. At 3 T, the measured variable flip angle T1 for one vendor is significantly different than the other two vendors for most of the samples throughout the clinically relevant range of T1. There was no consistent pattern of discrepancy between vendors. We suggest establishing rigorous quality control procedures for validating quantitative MRI methods to promote confidence and stability in associated measurement techniques and to enable translation of diagnostic threshold from the research center to the entire clinical community. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|