Skip to main content
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997
1.
D. M. Patterson, A. R. Padhani, and D. J. Collins, “Technology insight: Water diffusion MRI–a potential new biomarker of response to cancer therapy,” Nat. Clin. Pract. Oncol. 5(4), 220233 (2008).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ncponc1073
2.
A. R. Padhani et al., “Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: Consensus and recommendations,” Neoplasia 11(2), 102125 (2009).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1593/neo.81328
3.
H. Z. Wang, S. J. Riederer, and J. N. Lee, “Optimizing the precision in T1 relaxation estimation using limited flip angles,” Magn. Reson. Med. 5(5), 399416 (1987).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910050502
4.
J. M. Froehlich et al., “Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of upper abdominal organs: Field strength and intervendor variability of apparent diffusion coefficients,” Radiology 270(2), 454463 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130819
5.
C. P. Corona-Villalobos et al., “Agreement and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements of dual-b-value and multi-b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 1.5 Tesla in phantom and in soft tissues of the abdomen,” J. Comput. Assist. Tomogr. 37(1), 4651 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182720e07
6.
H. Schmidt and P. Martirosian, “Impact of measurement parameters on apparent diffusion coefficient quantification in diffusion-weighted-magnetic resonance imaging,” Invest. Radiol. 50(1), 4656 (2015).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000095
7.
D. M. Chase et al., “Changes in tumor blood flow as measured by dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) may predict activity of single agent bevacizumab in recurrent epithelial ovarian (EOC) and primary peritoneal cancer (PPC) patients: An exploratory,” Gynecol. Oncol. 126(3), 375380 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.002
8.
S. De Bruyne et al., “Value of DCE-MRI and FDG-PET/CT in the prediction of response to preoperative chemotherapy with bevacizumab for colorectal liver metastases,” Br. J. Cancer 106(12), 19261933 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2012.184
9.
K. Miyazaki et al., “Neuroendocrine tumor liver metastases: Use of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging to monitor and predict radiolabeled octreotide therapy response,” Radiology 263(1), 139148 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12110770
10.
C. Messiou et al., “Advanced solid tumors treated with cediranib: Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging and CT as markers of vascular activity,” Radiology 265(2), 426436 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112565
11.
P. S. Tofts et al., “Test liquids for quantitative MRI measurements of self-diffusion coefficient in vivo,” Magn. Reson. Med. 43(3), 368374 (2000).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1522-2594(200003)43:3<368::AID-MRM8>3.0.CO;2-B
12.
C. Pierpaoli, J. Sarlls, and U. Nevo, “Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) water solutions as isotropic phantoms for diffusion MRI studies,” in Proceedings of the 17th of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2009, presentation number 1414.
13.
I. Delakis, E. M. Moore, M. O. Leach, and W. J. P. De, “Developing a quality control protocol for diffusion imaging on a clinical MRI system,” Phys. Med. Biol. 49, 14091422 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/49/8/003
14.
M. Hara et al., “A new phantom and empirical formula for apparent diffusion coefficient measurement by a 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging scanner,” Oncol. Lett. 8, 819824 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2187
15.
D. I. Malyarenko et al., “Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 37(5), 12381246 (2013).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23825
16.
M. A. Boss et al., “Temperature-controlled isotropic diffusion phantom with wide range of apparent diffusion coefficients for multicenter assessment of scanner repeatability and reproducibility,” in Proceedings of the 22nd of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2014, presentation number 4505.
17.
M. Freed et al., “An anthropomorphic phantom for quantitative evaluation of breast MRI,” Med. Phys. 38(2), 743753 (2011).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1118/1.3533899
18.
E. K. Fram et al., “Rapid calculation of T1 using variable flip angle gradient refocused imaging,” Magn. Reson. Imaging 5(3), 201208 (1987).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0730-725X(87)90021-X
19.
K. Miyazaki, D. J. Collins, D.-M. Koh, D. J. Hawkes, M. O. Leach, and M. R. Orton, “Derivation of optimal flip angles via minimization of noise factor over large range of T1 for accurate variable flip angles-derived T1 estimation,” Proceedings of the 16th International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2008, presentation number 1410.
20.
J. Kurland, “Strategies and tactics in NMR imaging relaxation time measurements. I. Minimizing relaxation time errors due to image noise-the ideal case,” Magn. Reson. Med. 158, 136158 (1985).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910020205
21.
J. Imran, F. Langevin, and H. Saint-Jalmes, “Two-point method for T1 estimation with optimized gradient-echo sequence,” Magn. Reson. Imaging 17(9), 13471356 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0730-725X(99)00092-2
22.
O. N. Keene, “The log transform is special,” Stat. Med. 14(8), 811819 (1995).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.4780140810
23.
J. M. Bland and D. G. Altman, “Statistical methods in medical research,” Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8, 135160 (1999).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/096228099673819272
24.
M. E. Miquel, D. Scott, N. D. Macdougall, R. Boubertakh, N. Bharwani, and A. G. Rockall, “In vitro and in vivo repeatability of abdominal diffusion weighted MRI,” Br. J. Radiol. 85, 15071512 (2012).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1259/bjr/32269440
25.
I. Lavdas, M. E. Miquel, D. W. McRobbie, and E. O. Aboagye, “Comparison between diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: A phantom study,” J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 40(3), 682690 (2014).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jmri.24397
26.
C. M. J. De Bazelaire, G. D. Duhamel, N. M. Rofsky, and D. C. Alsop, “MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: Preliminary results,” Radiology 230(3), 652659 (2004).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2303021331
27.
J. Simpson and H. Carr, “Diffusion and nuclear spin relaxation in water,” Phys. Rev. 111(5), 12011202 (1958).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.111.1201
28.
P. M. Walker, C. Balmer, S. Ablett, and R. A. Lerski, “A test material for tissue characterisation and system calibration in MRI,” Phys. Med. Biol. 34(1), 522 (1989).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/34/1/002
29.
K. Miyazaki, J. D’Arcy, M. R. Orton, D.-M. Koh, D. J. Collins, and M. O. Leach, “Improved T1 quantification using post-Gd contrast variable flip angle data,” in Proceedings of the 17th of International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2011, presentation number 1092.
30.
H.-L.M. Cheng and G. A. Wright, “Rapid high-resolution T1 mapping by variable flip angles: Accurate and precise measurements in the presence of radiofrequency field inhomogeneity,” Magn. Reson. Med. 55, 566576 (2006).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.20791
31.
S. C. L. Deoni, B. K. Rutt, and T. M. Peters, “Rapid combined T1 and T2 mapping using gradient recalled acquisition in the steady state,” Magn. Reson. Med. 49, 515526 (2003).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/mrm.10407
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997
Loading
/content/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997
2016-05-20
2016-09-28

Abstract

Diffusion-weighted (DW) and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are increasingly applied for the assessment of functional tissue biomarkers for diagnosis, lesion characterization, or for monitoring of treatment response. However, these techniques are vulnerable to the influence of various factors, so there is a necessity for a standardized MR quality assurance procedure utilizing a phantom to facilitate the reliable estimation of repeatability of these quantitative biomarkers arising from technical factors (e.g., variation) affecting acquisition on scanners of different vendors and field strengths. The purpose of this study is to present a novel phantom designed for use in quality assurance for multicenter trials, and the associated repeatability measurements of functional and quantitative imaging protocols across different MR vendors and field strengths.

A cylindrical acrylic phantom was manufactured containing 7 vials of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) solutions of different concentrations, ranging from 0% (distilled water) to 25% w/w, to create a range of different MR contrast parameters. Temperature control was achieved by equilibration with ice-water. Repeated MR imaging measurements of the phantom were performed on four clinical scanners (two at 1.5 T, two at 3.0 T; two vendors) using the same scanning protocol to assess the long-term and short-term repeatability. The scanning protocol consisted of DW measurements, inversion recovery (IR) measurements, multiecho measurement, and dynamic -weighted sequence allowing multiple variable flip angle (VFA) estimation of values over time. For each measurement, the corresponding calculated parameter maps were produced. On each calculated map, regions of interest (ROIs) were drawn within each vial and the median value of these voxels was assessed. For the dynamic data, the autocorrelation function and their variance were calculated; for the assessment of the repeatability, the coefficients of variation (CoV) were calculated.

For both field strengths across the available vendors, the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) at 0 °C ranged from (1.12 ± 0.01) × 10−3 mm2/s for pure water to (0.48 ± 0.02) × 10−3 mm2/s for the 25% w/w PVP concentration, presenting a minor variability between the vendors and the field strengths. and IR- relaxation time results demonstrated variability between the field strengths and the vendors across the different acquisitions. Moreover, the values derived from the VFA method exhibited a large variation compared with the IR- values across all the scanners for all repeated measurements, although the calculation of the standard deviation of the VFA- estimate across each ROI and the autocorrelation showed a stability of the signal for three scanners, with autocorrelation of the signal over the dynamic series revealing a periodic variation in one scanner. Finally, the ADC, the , and the IR- values exhibited an excellent repeatability across the scanners, whereas for the dynamic data, the CoVs were higher.

The combination of a novel PVP phantom, with multiple compartments to give a physiologically relevant range of ADC and values, together with ice-water as a temperature-controlled medium, allows reliable quality assurance measurements that can be used to measure agreement between MRI scanners, critical in multicenter functional and quantitative imaging studies.

Loading

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/1.4948997.html;jsessionid=xB3EkiRVy0ppoqCteZ7JLqji.x-aip-live-06?itemId=/content/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah&containerItemId=content/aapm/journal/medphys
true
true

Access Key

  • FFree Content
  • OAOpen Access Content
  • SSubscribed Content
  • TFree Trial Content
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
/content/realmedia?fmt=ahah&adPositionList=
&advertTargetUrl=//oascentral.aip.org/RealMedia/ads/&sitePageValue=online.medphys.org/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997&pageURL=http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapm/journal/medphys/43/6/10.1118/1.4948997'
Right1,Right2,Right3,