J Huo1, J Alger2, H Kim2, M Brown2, K Okada3, W Pope2, J Goldin2. 1. TeraRecon Inc., 4000 E 3rd Ave., Suite 200, 94404, Foster City, CA, USA. jinghuo@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiological Science, University of California in Los Angeles, 924 Westwood Blvd, Suite 650, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 3. Department of Computer Science, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To study the between-scanner variation and the between-visit reproducibility of brain apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in the setting of a multi-center chemotherapy clinical trial for glioblastoma multiforme. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ADC maps of 52 patients at six sites were calculated in-house from diffusion-weighted images obtained by seven individual scanner models of two vendors. The median and coefficient of variation (CV) of normal brain white matter ADC values from a defined region of interest were used to evaluate the differences among scanner models, vendors, magnetic fields, as well as successive visits. All patients participating in this study signed institutional review board approved informed consent. Data acquisition was performed in compliance with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. The study spanned from August 1, 2006, to January 29, 2008. RESULTS: For baseline median ADC, no difference was observed between the different scanner models, different vendors, and different magnetic field strength. For baseline ADC CV, a significant difference was found between different scanner models (p = 0.0002). No between-scanner difference was observed in ADC changes between two visits. For between-visit reproducibility, significant difference was seen between the ADC values measured at two successive visits for the whole patient group. CONCLUSION: The CVs varied significantly between scanners, presumably due to image noise. Consistent scanner parameter setup can improve reproducibility of the ADC measurements between visits.
PURPOSE: To study the between-scanner variation and the between-visit reproducibility of brain apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in the setting of a multi-center chemotherapy clinical trial for glioblastoma multiforme. METHODS AND MATERIALS: ADC maps of 52 patients at six sites were calculated in-house from diffusion-weighted images obtained by seven individual scanner models of two vendors. The median and coefficient of variation (CV) of normal brain white matter ADC values from a defined region of interest were used to evaluate the differences among scanner models, vendors, magnetic fields, as well as successive visits. All patients participating in this study signed institutional review board approved informed consent. Data acquisition was performed in compliance with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. The study spanned from August 1, 2006, to January 29, 2008. RESULTS: For baseline median ADC, no difference was observed between the different scanner models, different vendors, and different magnetic field strength. For baseline ADC CV, a significant difference was found between different scanner models (p = 0.0002). No between-scanner difference was observed in ADC changes between two visits. For between-visit reproducibility, significant difference was seen between the ADC values measured at two successive visits for the whole patient group. CONCLUSION: The CVs varied significantly between scanners, presumably due to image noise. Consistent scanner parameter setup can improve reproducibility of the ADC measurements between visits.
Entities:
Keywords:
ADC; Between-scanner variation; Between-visit reproducibility; Normal white matter
Authors: Koji Koizumi; K Masuda; M Komizu; Y Ikemoto; M Yoshimura; H Iguchi; A Hiraga; A Kobayashi Journal: Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi Date: 2003-07
Authors: Jonathan A D Farrell; Bennett A Landman; Craig K Jones; Seth A Smith; Jerry L Prince; Peter C M van Zijl; Susumu Mori Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Whitney B Pope; Hyun J Kim; Jing Huo; Jeffry Alger; Matthew S Brown; David Gjertson; Victor Sai; Jonathan R Young; Leena Tekchandani; Timothy Cloughesy; Paul S Mischel; Albert Lai; Phioanh Nghiemphu; Syed Rahmanuddin; Jonathan Goldin Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Vishwesh Nath; Prasanna Parvathaneni; Colin B Hansen; Allison E Hainline; Camilo Bermudez; Samuel Remedios; Justin A Blaber; Kurt G Schilling; Ilwoo Lyu; Vaibhav Janve; Yurui Gao; Iwona Stepniewska; Baxter P Rogers; Allen T Newton; L Taylor Davis; Jeff Luci; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Lect Notes Monogr Ser Date: 2019-05-03
Authors: Xiaopeng Zhou; Ken E Sakaie; Josef P Debbins; Sridar Narayanan; Robert J Fox; Mark J Lowe Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-07-23 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Nabin Koirala; Daniel Kleinman; Meaghan V Perdue; Xing Su; Martina Villa; Elena L Grigorenko; Nicole Landi Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Orwa Aboud; Ritu Shah; Elizabeth Vera; Eric Burton; Brett Theeler; Jing Wu; Lisa Boris; Martha Quezado; Jennifer Reyes; Kathleen Wall; Mark R Gilbert; Terri S Armstrong; Marta Penas-Prado Journal: CNS Oncol Date: 2022-02-10
Authors: Pratheek S Bobba; Clara F Weber; Adrian Mak; Ali Mozayan; Ajay Malhotra; Kevin N Sheth; Sarah N Taylor; Arastoo Vossough; Patricia Ellen Grant; Dustin Scheinost; Robert Todd Constable; Laura R Ment; Seyedmehdi Payabvash Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2022-05-23 Impact factor: 5.399
Authors: Michael H Schönfeld; Robert M Ritzel; Andre Kemmling; Marielle Ernst; Jens Fiehler; Susanne Gellißen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-03 Impact factor: 3.240