Dataset Information

Multi-site, multi-platform comparison of MRI T1 measurement using the system phantom.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Keenan KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8244851 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The T1 Mapping and Extracellular volume (ECV) Standardization (T1MES) program explored T1 mapping quality assurance using a purpose-developed phantom with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européenne (CE) regulatory clearance. We report T1 measurement repeatability across centers describing sequence, magnet, and vendor performance. METHODS:Phantoms batch-manufactured in August 2015 underwent 2?years of structural imaging, B0 and B1, and "reference" slow T1 testing. Temperature dependency was evaluated by the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the German Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt. Center-specific T1 mapping repeatability (maximum one scan per week to minimum one per quarter year) was assessed over mean 358 (maximum 1161) days on 34 1.5?T and 22 3?T magnets using multiple T1 mapping sequences. Image and temperature data were analyzed semi-automatically. Repeatability of serial T1 was evaluated in terms of coefficient of variation (CoV), and linear mixed models were constructed to study the interplay of some of the known sources of T1 variation. RESULTS:Over 2?years, phantom gel integrity remained intact (no rips/tears), B0 and B1 homogenous, and "reference" T1 stable compared to baseline (% change at 1.5?T, 1.95?±?1.39%; 3?T, 2.22?±?1.44%). Per degrees Celsius, 1.5?T, T1 (MOLLI 5s(3s)3s) increased by 11.4?ms in long native blood tubes and decreased by 1.2?ms in short post-contrast myocardium tubes. Agreement of estimated T1 times with "reference" T1 was similar across Siemens and Philips CMR systems at both field strengths (adjusted R2 ranges for both field strengths, 0.99-1.00). Over 1?year, many 1.5?T and 3?T sequences/magnets were repeatable with mean CoVs <?1 and 2% respectively. Repeatability was narrower for 1.5?T over 3?T. Within T1MES repeatability for native T1 was narrow for several sequences, for example, at 1.5?T, Siemens MOLLI 5s(3s)3s prototype number 448B (mean CoV?=?0.27%) and Philips modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI) 3s(3s)5s (CoV 0.54%), and at 3?T, Philips MOLLI 3b(3s)5b (CoV 0.33%) and Siemens shortened MOLLI (ShMOLLI) prototype 780C (CoV 0.69%). After adjusting for temperature and field strength, it was found that the T1 mapping sequence and scanner software version (both P?<?0.001 at 1.5?T and 3?T), and to a lesser extent the scanner model (P?=?0.011, 1.5?T only), had the greatest influence on T1 across multiple centers. CONCLUSION:The T1MES CE/FDA approved phantom is a robust quality assurance device. In a multi-center setting, T1 mapping had performance differences between field strengths, sequences, scanner software versions, and manufacturers. However, several specific combinations of field strength, sequence, and scanner are highly repeatable, and thus, have potential to provide standardized assessment of T1 times for clinical use, although temperature correction is required for native T1 tubes at least.

Project description:The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of combining dynamic contrast enhanced-magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) with the measurement of the radiofrequency (RF) transmit field B1 and pre-contrast longitudinal relaxation time T10 . A novel approach has been proposed to simultaneously estimate B1 and T10 from a modified DCE-MRI scan that actively encodes the washout phase of the curve with different amounts of T1 and B1 weighting using multiple flip angles and repetition times, hence referred to as active contrast encoding (ACE)-MRI. ACE-MRI aims to simultaneously measure B1 and T10 , together with contrast kinetic parameters, such as the transfer constant Ktrans , interstitial space volume fraction ve and vascular space volume fraction vp . The proposed method was tested using numerical simulations and in vivo studies with mouse models of breast cancer implanted in the flank and mammary fat pad, and glioma in the brain. In the numerical simulation study with a signal-to-noise ratio of 10, both B1 and T10 were estimated accurately with errors of 5.1 ± 3.5% and 12.3 ± 8.8% and coefficients of variation (CV) of 14.9 ± 8.6% and 15.0 ± 5.0%, respectively. Using the same ACE-MRI data, the kinetic parameters Ktrans , ve and vp were also estimated with errors of 14.2 ± 8.3% (CV = 13.5 ± 4.6%), 14.7 ± 9.9% (CV = 13.3 ± 4.5%) and 14.0 ± 9.3% (CV = 14.0 ± 4.5%), respectively. For the in vivo tumor data from 11 mice, voxel-wise comparisons between ACE-MRI and DCE-MRI methods showed that the mean differences for the five parameters were as follows: ΔKtrans = 0.006 (/min), Δve = 0.016, Δvp = 0.000, ΔB1 = -0.014 and ΔT1 = -0.085 (s), which suggests a good agreement between the two methods. When compared with separately measured B1 and T10 , and DCE-MRI estimated kinetic parameters as a reference, the mean relative errors of ACE-MRI estimation were B1 = -0.3%, T10 = -8.5%, Ktrans = 11.4%, ve = 14.5% and vp = 4.5%. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates that the proposed ACE-MRI method can be used to estimate B1 and T10 , together with contrast kinetic model parameters.

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.

Dataset Information

Multi-site, multi-platform comparison of MRI T1 measurement using the system phantom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets