PURPOSE: To provide sample size calculation for the quantitative assessment of carotid atherosclerotic plaque using non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging in multi-center clinical trials. METHODS. As part of a broader double-blind randomized trial of an experimental pharmaceutical agent, 20 asymptomatic placebo-control subjects were recruited from 5 clinical sites for a multi-center study. Subjects had 4 scans in 13 weeks on GE 1.5 T scanners, using TOF, T1-/PD-/T2- and contrast-enhanced Tl-weighted images. Measurement variability was assessed by comparing quantitative data from the index carotid artery over the four time points. The wall/outer wall (W/OW) ratio was calculated as wall volume divided by outer wall volume. The percent lipid-rich/necrotic core (%LR/NC) and calcification (%Ca) were measured as a proportion of the vessel wall. For %LR/NC and %Ca, only those subjects that exhibited LR/NC or Ca components were used in the analysis. RESULTS:Measurement error was 5.8% for wall volume, 3.2% for W/OW ratio, 11.1% for %LR/NC volume and 18.6% for %Ca volume. Power analysis based on these values shows that a study with 14 participants in each group could detect a 5% change in W/OW ratio, 10% change in wall volume, and 20% change in %LR/NC volume (power = 80%, p < .05). The calculated measurement errors presume any true biological changes were negligible over the 3 months that subjects received placebo. CONCLUSION: In vivo MRI is capable of quantifying plaque volume and plaque composition, such as %lipid-rich/necrotic core and %calcification, in the clinical setting of a multi-center trial with low inter-scan variability. This study provides the basis for sample size calculation of future MRI trials.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To provide sample size calculation for the quantitative assessment of carotid atherosclerotic plaque using non-invasive magnetic resonance imaging in multi-center clinical trials. METHODS. As part of a broader double-blind randomized trial of an experimental pharmaceutical agent, 20 asymptomatic placebo-control subjects were recruited from 5 clinical sites for a multi-center study. Subjects had 4 scans in 13 weeks on GE 1.5 T scanners, using TOF, T1-/PD-/T2- and contrast-enhanced Tl-weighted images. Measurement variability was assessed by comparing quantitative data from the index carotid artery over the four time points. The wall/outer wall (W/OW) ratio was calculated as wall volume divided by outer wall volume. The percent lipid-rich/necrotic core (%LR/NC) and calcification (%Ca) were measured as a proportion of the vessel wall. For %LR/NC and %Ca, only those subjects that exhibited LR/NC or Ca components were used in the analysis. RESULTS: Measurement error was 5.8% for wall volume, 3.2% for W/OW ratio, 11.1% for %LR/NC volume and 18.6% for %Ca volume. Power analysis based on these values shows that a study with 14 participants in each group could detect a 5% change in W/OW ratio, 10% change in wall volume, and 20% change in %LR/NC volume (power = 80%, p < .05). The calculated measurement errors presume any true biological changes were negligible over the 3 months that subjects received placebo. CONCLUSION: In vivo MRI is capable of quantifying plaque volume and plaque composition, such as %lipid-rich/necrotic core and %calcification, in the clinical setting of a multi-center trial with low inter-scan variability. This study provides the basis for sample size calculation of future MRI trials.
Authors: Tobias Saam; Chun Yuan; Baocheng Chu; Norihide Takaya; Hunter Underhill; Jianming Cai; Nam Tran; Nayak L Polissar; Blazej Neradilek; Gail P Jarvik; Carol Isaac; Gwenn A Garden; Kenneth R Maravilla; Beverly Hashimoto; Thomas S Hatsukami Journal: Atherosclerosis Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 5.162
Authors: Li Dong; Jinnan Wang; Vasily L Yarnykh; Hunter R Underhill; Moni B Neradilek; Nayak Polissar; Thomas S Hatsukami; Chun Yuan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: M J van Gils; D Vukadinovic; A C van Dijk; D W J Dippel; W J Niessen; A van der Lugt Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-02-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Diederik F van Wijk; Aart C Strang; Raphael Duivenvoorden; Dirk-Jan F Enklaar; Rob J van der Geest; John J P Kastelein; Eric de Groot; Erik S G Stroes; Aart J Nederveen Journal: MAGMA Date: 2013-09-18 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: H R Underhill; C Yuan; V L Yarnykh; B Chu; M Oikawa; L Dong; N L Polissar; G A Garden; S C Cramer; T S Hatsukami Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ye Qiao; Zeeshan Anwar; Jarunee Intrapiromkul; Li Liu; Steven R Zeiler; Richard Leigh; Yiyi Zhang; Eliseo Guallar; Bruce A Wasserman Journal: Stroke Date: 2016-01-07 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Venkatesh Mani; Paul Muntner; Samuel S Gidding; Silvia H Aguiar; Hamza El Aidi; Karen B Weinshelbaum; Hiroaki Taniguchi; Rob van der Geest; Johan H C Reiber; Sameer Bansilal; Michael Farkouh; Valentin Fuster; John E Postley; Mark Woodward; Zahi A Fayad Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-04-24 Impact factor: 5.364
Authors: Tobias Saam; Jose G Raya; Clemens C Cyran; Katja Bochmann; Georgios Meimarakis; Olaf Dietrich; Dirk A Clevert; Ute Frey; Chun Yuan; Thomas S Hatsukami; Abe Werf; Maximilian F Reiser; Konstantin Nikolaou Journal: J Cardiovasc Magn Reson Date: 2009-10-27 Impact factor: 5.364