PURPOSE: To determine quantitative quality control procedures to evaluate technical variability in multi-center measurements of the diffusion coefficient of water as a prerequisite to use of the biomarker apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in multi-center clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A uniform data acquisition protocol was developed and shared with 18 participating test sites along with a temperature-controlled diffusion phantom delivered to each site. Usable diffusion weighted imaging data of ice water at five b-values were collected on 35 clinical MRI systems from three vendors at two field strengths (1.5 and 3 Tesla [T]) and analyzed at a central processing site. RESULTS: Standard deviation of bore-center ADCs measured across 35 scanners was <2%; error range: -2% to +5% from literature value. Day-to-day repeatability of the measurements was within 4.5%. Intra-exam repeatability at the phantom center was within 1%. Excluding one outlier, inter-site reproducibility of ADC at magnet isocenter was within 3%, although variability increased for off-center measurements. Significant (>10%) vendor-specific and system-specific spatial nonuniformity ADC bias was detected for the off-center measurement that was consistent with gradient nonlinearity. CONCLUSION: Standardization of DWI protocol has improved reproducibility of ADC measurements and allowed identifying spatial ADC nonuniformity as a source of error in multi-site clinical studies.
PURPOSE: To determine quantitative quality control procedures to evaluate technical variability in multi-center measurements of the diffusion coefficient of water as a prerequisite to use of the biomarker apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in multi-center clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A uniform data acquisition protocol was developed and shared with 18 participating test sites along with a temperature-controlled diffusion phantom delivered to each site. Usable diffusion weighted imaging data of ice water at five b-values were collected on 35 clinical MRI systems from three vendors at two field strengths (1.5 and 3 Tesla [T]) and analyzed at a central processing site. RESULTS: Standard deviation of bore-center ADCs measured across 35 scanners was <2%; error range: -2% to +5% from literature value. Day-to-day repeatability of the measurements was within 4.5%. Intra-exam repeatability at the phantom center was within 1%. Excluding one outlier, inter-site reproducibility of ADC at magnet isocenter was within 3%, although variability increased for off-center measurements. Significant (>10%) vendor-specific and system-specific spatial nonuniformity ADC bias was detected for the off-center measurement that was consistent with gradient nonlinearity. CONCLUSION: Standardization of DWI protocol has improved reproducibility of ADC measurements and allowed identifying spatial ADC nonuniformity as a source of error in multi-site clinical studies.
Authors: R V Mulkern; H Gudbjartsson; C F Westin; H P Zengingonul; W Gartner; C R Guttmann; R L Robertson; W Kyriakos; R Schwartz; D Holtzman; F A Jolesz; S E Maier Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Stefan J Teipel; Sigrid Reuter; Bram Stieltjes; Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Ulrike Ernemann; Andreas Fellgiebel; Massimo Filippi; Giovanni Frisoni; Frank Hentschel; Frank Jessen; Stefan Klöppel; Thomas Meindl; Petra J W Pouwels; Karl-Heinz Hauenstein; Harald Hampel Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 3.222
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
Authors: William M Spees; Sheng-Kwei Song; Joel R Garbow; Jeffrey J Neil; Joseph J H Ackerman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-11-29 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Daniel A Hamstra; Kuei C Lee; Bradford A Moffat; Thomas L Chenevert; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2008-12 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: P S Tofts; D Lloyd; C A Clark; G J Barker; G J Parker; P McConville; C Baldock; J M Pope Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Deprez; Michiel B de Ruiter; S Bogaert; R Peeters; J Belderbos; D De Ruysscher; S Schagen; S Sunaert; P Pullens; E Achten Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2018-04-14 Impact factor: 2.804
Authors: Robert M Hicks; Judy Yee; Michael A Ohliger; Stefanie Weinstein; Jeffrey Kao; Nabia S Ikram; Thomas A Hope Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-04-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Zheng Zhang; Thomas L Chenevert; Justin Romanoff; Averi E Kitsch; Lucy G Hanna; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Karen Y Oh; Colleen H Neal; Elizabeth S McDonald; Mitchell D Schnall; Constance D Lehman; Christopher E Comstock; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2019-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jennifer L Boes; Benjamin A Hoff; Nola Hylton; Martin D Pickles; Lindsay W Turnbull; Anne F Schott; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Ryan Chamberlain; Benjamin Lemasson; Thomas L Chenevert; Craig J Galbán; Charles R Meyer; Brian D Ross Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Brenda F Kurland; Matthew L Olson; Averi E Kitsch; John R Scheel; Xiaoyu Chai; Joshua Usoro; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2016 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826