Dataset Information

Repeatability and reproducibility of longitudinal relaxation rate in 12 small-animal MRI systems.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many translational MR biomarkers derive from measurements of the water proton longitudinal relaxation rate R₁, but evidence for between-site reproducibility of R₁ in small-animal MRI is lacking.

Objective

To assess R₁ repeatability and multi-site reproducibility in phantoms for preclinical MRI.

Methods

R₁ was measured by saturation recovery in 2% agarose phantoms with five nickel chloride concentrations in 12 magnets at 5 field strengths in 11 centres on two different occasions within 1-13?days. R₁ was analysed in three different regions of interest, giving 360 measurements in total. Root-mean-square repeatability and reproducibility coefficients of variation (CoV) were calculated. Propagation of reproducibility errors into 21 translational MR measurements and biomarkers was estimated. Relaxivities were calculated. Dynamic signal stability was also measured.

Results

CoV for day-to-day repeatability (N?=?180 regions of interest) was 2.34% and for between-centre reproducibility (N?=?9 centres) was 1.43%. Mostly, these do not propagate to biologically significant between-centre error, although a few R₁-based MR biomarkers were found to be quite sensitive even to such small errors in R₁, notably in myocardial fibrosis, in white matter, and in oxygen-enhanced MRI. The relaxivity of aqueous Ni²⁺ in 2% agarose varied between 0.66?s^-1?mM^-1 at 3?T and 0.94?s^-1?mM^-1 at 11.7T.

Interpretation

While several factors affect the reproducibility of R₁-based MR biomarkers measured preclinically, between-centre propagation of errors arising from intrinsic equipment irreproducibility should in most cases be small. However, in a few specific cases exceptional efforts might be required to ensure R₁-reproducibility.

SUBMITTER: Waterton JC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6477178 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Repeatability and reproducibility of longitudinal relaxation rate in 12 small-animal MRI systems.

Waterton John C JC Hines Catherine D G CDG Hockings Paul D PD Laitinen Iina I Ziemian Sabina S Campbell Simon S Gottschalk Michael M Green Claudia C Haase Michael M Hassemer Katja K Juretschke Hans-Paul HP Koehler Sascha S Lloyd William W Luo Yanping Y Mahmutovic Persson Irma I O'Connor James P B JPB Olsson Lars E LE Pindoria Kashmira K Schneider Jurgen E JE Sourbron Steven S Steinmann Denise D Strobel Klaus K Tadimalla Sirisha S Teh Irvin I Veltien Andor A Zhang Xiaomeng X Schütz Gunnar G

Magnetic resonance imaging 20190312

<h4>Background</h4>Many translational MR biomarkers derive from measurements of the water proton longitudinal relaxation rate R<sub>1</sub>, but evidence for between-site reproducibility of R<sub>1</sub> in small-animal MRI is lacking.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess R<sub>1</sub> repeatability and multi-site reproducibility in phantoms for preclinical MRI.<h4>Methods</h4>R<sub>1</sub> was measured by saturation recovery in 2% agarose phantoms with five nickel chloride concentrations in 12 magnets at ...[more]

PMID: 30872166

Similar Datasets

Project description:Quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) have the potential to impact patient care by providing noninvasive biological information in breast cancer. To quantify the repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T1 -mapping of the breast in community radiology practices. Prospective. Ice-water DW-MRI and T1 gel phantoms were used to assess accuracy. Normal subjects (n = 3) and phantoms across three sites (one academic, two community) were used to assess reproducibility. Test-retest analysis at one site in normal subjects (n = 12) was used to assess repeatability. 3T Siemens Skyra MRI quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping. Quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping parametric maps of phantoms and fibroglandular and adipose tissue of the breast. Average values of breast tissue were quantified and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the repeatability of the MRI techniques, while the Friedman test assessed reproducibility. ADC measurements were reproducible across sites, with an average difference of 1.6% in an ice-water phantom and 7.0% in breast fibroglandular tissue. T1 measurements in gel phantoms had an average difference of 2.8% across three sites, whereas breast fibroglandular and adipose tissue had 8.4% and 7.5% average differences, respectively. In the repeatability study, we found no bias between first and second scanning sessions (P = 0.1). The difference between repeated measurements was independent of the mean for each MRI metric (P = 0.156, P = 0.862, P = 0.197 for ADC, T1 of fibroglandular tissue, and T1 of adipose tissue, respectively). Community radiology practices can perform repeatable, reproducible, and accurate quantitative T1 -mapping and DW-MRI. This has the potential to dramatically expand the number of sites that can participate in multisite clinical trials and increase clinical translation of quantitative MRI techniques for cancer response assessment. 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.

Project description:PURPOSE:To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3?T. METHODS:A T1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. RESULTS:For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms?=?1.4-5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T1 sample (P?<?10-6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error?=?0.2-8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P?<?10-6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error?=?5.7-32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P?=?0.006), whereas repeatability (median error?=?0.7-25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P?<?0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3?T than 1.5?T (P?=?0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE?=?11.13%/8.21%, P?=?0.028; 3?T: VFA/IR-SE?=?22.87%/5.46%, P?=?0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2-3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors?<?15%). CONCLUSIONS:The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T1 quantification (errors?<?15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564-2575, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Project description:PurposeAn ever-growing number of predictive models used to inform clinical decision making have included quantitative, computer-extracted imaging biomarkers, or "radiomic features." Broadly generalizable validity of radiomics-assisted models may be impeded by concerns about reproducibility. We offer a qualitative synthesis of 41 studies that specifically investigated the repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features, derived from a systematic review of published peer-reviewed literature.Methods and materialsThe PubMed electronic database was searched using combinations of the broad Haynes and Ingui filters along with a set of text words specific to cancer, radiomics (including texture analyses), reproducibility, and repeatability. This review has been reported in compliance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. From each full-text article, information was extracted regarding cancer type, class of radiomic feature examined, reporting quality of key processing steps, and statistical metric used to segregate stable features.ResultsAmong 624 unique records, 41 full-text articles were subjected to review. The studies primarily addressed non-small cell lung cancer and oropharyngeal cancer. Only 7 studies addressed in detail every methodologic aspect related to image acquisition, preprocessing, and feature extraction. The repeatability and reproducibility of radiomic features are sensitive at various degrees to processing details such as image acquisition settings, image reconstruction algorithm, digital image preprocessing, and software used to extract radiomic features. First-order features were overall more reproducible than shape metrics and textural features. Entropy was consistently reported as one of the most stable first-order features. There was no emergent consensus regarding either shape metrics or textural features; however, coarseness and contrast appeared among the least reproducible.ConclusionsInvestigations of feature repeatability and reproducibility are currently limited to a small number of cancer types. Reporting quality could be improved regarding details of feature extraction software, digital image manipulation (preprocessing), and the cutoff value used to distinguish stable features.

Project description:BackgroundThe introduction of novel short course treatment regimens for the radical cure of Plasmodium vivax requires reliable point-of-care diagnosis that can identify glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficient individuals. While deficient males can be identified using a qualitative diagnostic test, the genetic make-up of females requires a quantitative measurement. SD Biosensor (Republic of Korea) has developed a handheld quantitative G6PD diagnostic (STANDARD G6PD test), that has approximately 90% accuracy in field studies for identifying individuals with intermediate or severe deficiency. The device can only be considered for routine care if precision of the assay is high.Methods and findingsCommercial lyophilised controls (ACS Analytics, USA) with high, intermediate, and low G6PD activities were assessed 20 times on 10 Biosensor devices and compared to spectrophotometry (Pointe Scientific, USA). Each device was then dispatched to one of 10 different laboratories with a standard set of the controls. Each control was tested 40 times at each laboratory by a single user and compared to spectrophotometry results. When tested at one site, the mean coefficient of variation (CV) was 0.111, 0.172 and 0.260 for high, intermediate, and low controls across all devices respectively; combined G6PD Biosensor readings correlated well with spectrophotometry (rs = 0.859, p<0.001). When tested in different laboratories, correlation was lower (rs = 0.604, p<0.001) and G6PD activity determined by Biosensor for the low and intermediate controls overlapped. The use of lyophilised human blood samples rather than fresh blood may have affected these findings. Biosensor G6PD readings between sites did not differ significantly (p = 0.436), whereas spectrophotometry readings differed markedly between sites (p<0.001).ConclusionsRepeatability and inter-laboratory reproducibility of the Biosensor were good; though the device did not reliably discriminate between intermediate and low G6PD activities of the lyophilized specimens. Clinical studies are now required to assess the devices performance in practice.

Project description:PurposeTo compare the bias and inherent reliability of the quantitative (T1 and T2 ) imaging metrics generated from the magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) technique using the ISMRM/NIST system phantom in an international multicenter setting.MethodISMRM/NIST MRI system phantom provides standard reference T1 and T2 relaxation values (vendor-provided) for each of the 14 vials in T1 and T2 arrays. MRF-SSFP scans repeated over 30 days on GE 1.5 and 3.0 T scanners at three collaborative centers. MRF estimated T1, and T2 values averaged over 30 days were compared with the phantom vendor-provided and spin-echo (SE) based convention gold standard (GS) method. Repeatability and reproducibility were characterized by the within-case coefficient of variation (wCV) of the MRF data acquired over 30 days, along with the biases.ResultFor the wide ranges of MRF estimated T1 values, vials #1-8 (T1 relaxation time between 2033 and 184 ms) exhibited a wCV less than 3% and 4%, respectively, on 3.0 and 1.5 T scanners. T2 values in vials #1-8 (T2 relaxation, 1044-45 ms) have shown wCV to be <7% on both 3.0 and 1.5 T scanners. A stronger linear correlation overall for T1 (R2 = 0.9960 and 0.9963 at center-1 and center-2 on 3.0 T scanner, and R2 = 0.9951 and 0.9988 at center-1 and center-3 on 1.5 T scanner) compared to T2 (R2 = 0.9971 and 0.9972 at center-1 and center-2 on 3.0 T scanner, and R2 = 0.9815 and 0.9754 at center-1 and center-3 on 1.5 T scanner). Bland-Altman (BA) analysis showed MRF based T1 and T2 values were within the limit of agreement (LOA) except for one data point. The mean difference or bias and 95% lower bound (LB) and upper bound (UB) LOA are reported in the format; mean bias: 95% LB LOA: 95% UB LOA. The biases for T1 values were 21.34: -50.00: 92.69, 21.32: -47.29: 89.94 ms, and for T2 values were -19.88: -42.37: 2.61, -19.06: -43.58: 5.45 ms on 3.0 T scanner at center-1 and center-2, respectively. Similarly, on 1.5 T scanner biases for T1 values were 26.54: -53.41: 106.50, 9.997: -51.94: 71.94 ms, and for T2 values were -23.84: -135.40: 87.76, -37.30: 134.30: 59.73 ms at center-1 and center-3, respectively. Additionally, the correlation between the SE based GS and MRF estimated T1 and T2 values (R2 = 0.9969 and 0.9977) showed a similar trend as we observed between vendor-provided and MRF estimated T1 and T2 values (R2 = 0.9963 and 0.9972). In addition to correlation, BA analysis showed that all the vials are within the LOA between the GS and vendor-provided for the T1 values and except one vial for T2 . All the vials are within the LOA between GS and MRF except one vial in T1 and T2 array. The wCV for reproducibility was <3% for both T1 and T2 values in vials #1-8, for all the 14 vials, wCV calculated for reproducibility was <4% for T1 values and <5% for T2 .ConclusionThis study shows that MRF is highly repeatable (wCV <4% for T1 and <7% for T2 ) and reproducible (wCV < 3% for both T1 and T2 ) in certain vials (vials #1-8).

Dataset Information

Repeatability and reproducibility of longitudinal relaxation rate in 12 small-animal MRI systems.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Repeatability and reproducibility of longitudinal relaxation rate in 12 small-animal MRI systems.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets