Literature DB >> 15152682

Developing a quality control protocol for diffusion imaging on a clinical MRI system.

Ioannis Delakis1, Elizabeth M Moore, Martin O Leach, Janet P De Wilde.   

Abstract

This work describes the development of a quality control protocol, which can be implemented to assess the accuracy, precision and reproducibility of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement on a clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) system. The precision and accuracy of the ADC measurement are analysed with regard to MRI system noise, signal reproducibility and differences between nominal and effective b values. Two aqueous test-solutions of CuSO4 and sucrose are prepared for the quality control protocol. ADC measurement with the CuSO4 solution is more sensitive to differences between nominal and effective b values, on account of the solution's high ADC. ADC measurement with the sucrose solution is more sensitive to signal reproducibility due to the solution's low baseline signal intensity. The ADC of the test-solutions is measured on an MRI system at our centre with a sequence used for clinical studies using diffusion imaging. Two parameters, Q and R, are defined for the analysis of the quality control ADC values. The Q parameter is the ratio of the standard deviation of the quality control mean ADC values over time to the optimal standard deviation, as derived from the effect of thermal noise on the ADC measurement uncertainty. Analysis with the Q parameter indicates that signal reproducibility errors contribute to ADC variations on our MRI system when imaging with high b values (b > 500 mm s(-2)), whereas differences between nominal and effective b values have a greater impact on the ADC measurement when imaging with low b values (b < 500 mm s(-2)). The R parameter is defined as the ratio of the directional variation of the ADC quality control values to the uncertainty of the ADC measurement. Analysis with the R parameter shows that the effect of directional variation of the ADC measurement on our MRI system is more pronounced when imaging with low b values. The quality control protocol identified a systematic error, which introduced a small system-induced anisotropy in the ADC measurement. This error is currently taken into account in the analysis of clinical studies employing the diffusion imaging sequence used in this quality control protocol.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15152682     DOI: 10.1088/0031-9155/49/8/003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Phys Med Biol        ISSN: 0031-9155            Impact factor:   3.609


  22 in total

Review 1.  Multicentre imaging measurements for oncology and in the brain.

Authors:  P S Tofts; D J Collins
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  Analysis and correction of gradient nonlinearity bias in apparent diffusion coefficient measurements.

Authors:  Dariya I Malyarenko; Brian D Ross; Thomas L Chenevert
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Diffusion weighted imaging of the normal breast: reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements and variation with menstrual cycle and menopausal status.

Authors:  Elizabeth A M O'Flynn; Veronica A Morgan; Sharon L Giles; Nandita M deSouza
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-02-26       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom.

Authors:  Dariya Malyarenko; Craig J Galbán; Frank J Londy; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross; Thomas L Chenevert
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2012-09-28       Impact factor: 4.813

Review 5.  Predicting and monitoring cancer treatment response with diffusion-weighted MRI.

Authors:  Harriet C Thoeny; Brian D Ross
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.813

6.  Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies.

Authors:  Thomas L Chenevert; Craig J Galbán; Marko K Ivancevic; Susan E Rohrer; Frank J Londy; Thomas C Kwee; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 4.813

7.  Demonstration of nonlinearity bias in the measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in multicenter trials.

Authors:  Dariya I Malyarenko; David Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Alina Tudorica; Karl G Helmer; Lori R Arlinghaus; Michael A Jacobs; Guido Jajamovich; Bachir Taouli; Thomas E Yankeelov; Wei Huang; Thomas L Chenevert
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2015-05-02       Impact factor: 4.668

Review 8.  Physical and numerical phantoms for the validation of brain microstructural MRI: A cookbook.

Authors:  Els Fieremans; Hong-Hsi Lee
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2018-06-18       Impact factor: 6.556

9.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations.

Authors:  Anwar R Padhani; Guoying Liu; Dow Mu Koh; Thomas L Chenevert; Harriet C Thoeny; Taro Takahara; Andrew Dzik-Jurasz; Brian D Ross; Marc Van Cauteren; David Collins; Dima A Hammoud; Gordon J S Rustin; Bachir Taouli; Peter L Choyke
Journal:  Neoplasia       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 5.715

Review 10.  Diffusion MRI in early cancer therapeutic response assessment.

Authors:  C J Galbán; B A Hoff; T L Chenevert; B D Ross
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 4.044

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.