Dataset Information

A standard system phantom for magnetic resonance imaging.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

A standard MRI system phantom has been designed and fabricated to assess scanner performance, stability, comparability and assess the accuracy of quantitative relaxation time imaging. The phantom is unique in having traceability to the International System of Units, a high level of precision, and monitoring by a national metrology institute. Here, we describe the phantom design, construction, imaging protocols, and measurement of geometric distortion, resolution, slice profile, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), proton-spin relaxation times, image uniformity and proton density.

Methods

The system phantom, designed by the International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine ad hoc committee on Standards for Quantitative MR, is a 200 mm spherical structure that contains a 57-element fiducial array; two relaxation time arrays; a proton density/SNR array; resolution and slice-profile insets. Standard imaging protocols are presented, which provide rapid assessment of geometric distortion, image uniformity, T₁ and T₂ mapping, image resolution, slice profile, and SNR.

Results

Fiducial array analysis gives assessment of intrinsic geometric distortions, which can vary considerably between scanners and correction techniques. This analysis also measures scanner/coil image uniformity, spatial calibration accuracy, and local volume distortion. An advanced resolution analysis gives both scanner and protocol contributions. SNR analysis gives both temporal and spatial contributions.

Conclusions

A standard system phantom is useful for characterization of scanner performance, monitoring a scanner over time, and to compare different scanners. This type of calibration structure is useful for quality assurance, benchmarking quantitative MRI protocols, and to transition MRI from a qualitative imaging technique to a precise metrology with documented accuracy and uncertainty.

SUBMITTER: Stupic KF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252537 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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).

Project description:PURPOSE:Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) provides noninvasive evaluation of patient's anatomy without using ionizing radiation. Due to this and the high soft-tissue contrast, MRI use has increased and has potential for use in longitudinal studies where changes in patients' anatomy or tumors at different time points are compared. Deformable image registration can be useful for these studies. Here, we describe two datasets that can be used to evaluate the registration accuracy of systems for MR images, as it cannot be assumed to be the same as that measured on CT images. ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS:Two sets of images were created to test registration accuracy. (a) A porcine phantom was created by placing ten 0.35-mm gold markers into porcine meat. The porcine phantom was immobilized in a plastic container with movable dividers. T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and CT images were acquired with the porcine phantom compressed in four different ways. The markers were not visible on the MR images, due to the selected voxel size, so they did not interfere with the measured registration accuracy, while the markers were visible on the CT images and were used to identify the known deformation between positions. (b) Synthetic images were created using 28 head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients who had MR scans pre-, mid-, and postradiotherapy treatment. An inter- and intrapatient variation model was created using these patient scans. Four synthetic pretreatment images were created using the interpatient model, and four synthetic post-treatment images were created for each of the pretreatment images using the intrapatient model. DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES:The T1-weighted, T2-weighted, and CT scans of the porcine phantom in the four positions are provided. Four T1-weighted synthetic pretreatment images each with four synthetic post-treatment images, and four T2-weighted synthetic pretreatment images each with four synthetic post-treatment images are provided. Additionally, the applied deformation vector fields to generate the synthetic post-treatment images are provided. The data are available on TCIA under the collection MRI-DIR. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS:The proposed database provides two sets of images (one acquired and one computer generated) for use in evaluating deformable image registration accuracy. T1- and T2-weighted images are available for each technique as the different image contrast in the two types of images may impact the registration accuracy.