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:BACKGROUND: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. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS:To quantify the repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T1 -mapping of the breast in community radiology practices. STUDY TYPE:Prospective. SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: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. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE:3T Siemens Skyra MRI quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping. ASSESSMENT:Quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping parametric maps of phantoms and fibroglandular and adipose tissue of the breast. STATISTICAL TESTS: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. RESULTS: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). DATA CONCLUSION: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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: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.

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