David C Newitt1, Ek T Tan2, Lisa J Wilmes1, Thomas L Chenevert3, John Kornak4, Luca Marinelli2, Nola Hylton1. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. MRI Lab, GE Global Research, One Research Circle, Niskayuna, New York, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate a gradient nonlinearity correction (GNC) program for quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements on phantom and human subject diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in a multicenter breast cancer treatment response study MATERIALS AND METHODS: A GNC program using fifth-order spherical harmonics for gradient modeling was applied retrospectively to qualification phantom and human subject scans. Ice-water phantoms of known diffusion coefficient were scanned at five different study centers with different scanners and receiver coils. Human in vivo data consisted of baseline and early-treatment exams on 54 patients from four sites. ADC maps were generated with and without GNC. Regions of interest were defined to quantify absolute errors and changes with GNC over breast imaging positions. RESULTS: Phantom ADC errors varied with region of interest (ROI) position and scanner configuration; the mean error by configuration ranged from 1.4% to 19.9%. GNC significantly reduced the overall mean error for all sites from 9.9% to 0.6% (P = 0.016). Spatial dependence of GNC was highest in the right-left (RL) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Human subject mean tumor ADC was reduced 0.2 to 12% by GNC at different sites. By regression, every 1-cm change in tumor ROI position between baseline and follow-up visits resulted in an estimated change of 2.4% in the ADC early-treatment response measurement. CONCLUSION: GNC is effective for removing large, system-dependent errors in quantitative breast DWI. GNC may be important in ensuring reproducibility in multicenter studies and in reducing errors in longitudinal treatment response measures arising from spatial variations in tumor position between visits.
PURPOSE: To evaluate a gradient nonlinearity correction (GNC) program for quantitative apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements on phantom and human subject diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans in a multicenter breast cancer treatment response study MATERIALS AND METHODS: A GNC program using fifth-order spherical harmonics for gradient modeling was applied retrospectively to qualification phantom and human subject scans. Ice-water phantoms of known diffusion coefficient were scanned at five different study centers with different scanners and receiver coils. Human in vivo data consisted of baseline and early-treatment exams on 54 patients from four sites. ADC maps were generated with and without GNC. Regions of interest were defined to quantify absolute errors and changes with GNC over breast imaging positions. RESULTS: Phantom ADC errors varied with region of interest (ROI) position and scanner configuration; the mean error by configuration ranged from 1.4% to 19.9%. GNC significantly reduced the overall mean error for all sites from 9.9% to 0.6% (P = 0.016). Spatial dependence of GNC was highest in the right-left (RL) and anterior-posterior (AP) directions. Human subject mean tumor ADC was reduced 0.2 to 12% by GNC at different sites. By regression, every 1-cm change in tumor ROI position between baseline and follow-up visits resulted in an estimated change of 2.4% in the ADC early-treatment response measurement. CONCLUSION: GNC is effective for removing large, system-dependent errors in quantitative breast DWI. GNC may be important in ensuring reproducibility in multicenter studies and in reducing errors in longitudinal treatment response measures arising from spatial variations in tumor position between visits.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Revathi S Murthy; Ali Ziadloo; Steven W White; Kimberly H Allison; Constance D Lehman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Zachary W Slavens; Kevin F King; Christopher J Hardy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Laura J van 't Veer; Hongyue Dai; Marc J van de Vijver; Yudong D He; Augustinus A M Hart; Mao Mao; Hans L Peterse; Karin van der Kooy; Matthew J Marton; Anke T Witteveen; George J Schreiber; Ron M Kerkhoven; Chris Roberts; Peter S Linsley; René Bernards; Stephen H Friend Journal: Nature Date: 2002-01-31 Impact factor: 49.962
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: S C Partridge; H Rahbar; R Murthy; X Chai; B F Kurland; W B DeMartini; C D Lehman Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-01-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: A Fangberget; L B Nilsen; K H Hole; M M Holmen; O Engebraaten; B Naume; H-J Smith; D R Olsen; T Seierstad Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Baxter P Rogers; Justin Blaber; Allen T Newton; Colin B Hansen; E Brian Welch; Adam W Anderson; Jeffrey J Luci; Carlo Pierpaoli; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2018-03
Authors: Baxter P Rogers; Justin Blaber; E Brian Welch; Zhaohua Ding; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Proc SPIE Int Soc Opt Eng Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Lisa J Wilmes; Sheye O Aliu; David C Newitt; Ella F Jones; Michael A Boss; Karl F Stupic; Stephen E Russek; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ashley T Tao; Yunhong Shu; Ek T Tan; Joshua D Trzasko; Shengzhen Tao; Robert D Reid; Paul T Weavers; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-09-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ek T Tan; Christopher J Hardy; Yunhong Shu; Myung-Ho In; Arnaud Guidon; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein; Thomas K F Foo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Adele P Peskin; Lisa J Wilmes; Sheye O Aliu; Ella F Jones; Wen Li; John Kornak; David C Newitt; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-03-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dariya I Malyarenko; David C Newitt; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Lisa J Wilmes; Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Ajit Devaraj; Johannes M Peeters; Shivraman Giri; Axel Vom Endt; Nola M Hylton; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-06