OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) at 3-T and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by institutional ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained. Twenty-two healthy volunteers underwent 2 examinations on different days. Each examination consisted of MR imaging on both 3-T and 1.5-T MR scanners. The data from both scanners and examination days were obtained, and QSM was calculated with STI Suite using 2 different algorithms--harmonic phase removal using laplacian operator (HARPERELLA) and a sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP) method with a variable radius of the spherical kernel at the brain boundary (V-SHARP). We evaluated consistency of QSM between 3 T and 1.5 T and the reproducibility between the first and second examinations using 2-phase processing methods (HARPERELLA and V-SHARP). RESULTS: Susceptibility values of regions of interests at 3 T were highly correlated with those at 1.5 T with good agreement (HARPERELLA, R2 = 0.838; V-SHARP, R2 = 0.898) (average difference, ±1.96 SD; HARPERELLA, -0.012 ± 0.046; V-SHARP, -0.002 ± 0.034). Reproducibility analysis demonstrated excellent correlation between the first and second examination at both 3 T and 1.5 T for both algorithms (HARPERELLA at 3 T, R2 = 0.921; 1.5 T, R2 = 0.891; V-SHARP at 3 T, R2 = 0.937; 1.5 T, R2 = 0.926). Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent reproducibility for HARPERELLA (3 T, -0.003 ± 0.032; 1.5 T, -0.003 ± 0.038) and V-SHARP (3 T, -0.003 ± 0.027; 1.5 T, -0.003 ± 0.029). Susceptibility values of these 2 algorithms were highly correlated with good agreement (3T, R2 = 0.961; 1.5 T, R = 0.931) (3 T, 0.009 ± 0.023; 1.5 T, -0.003 ± 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping with HARPERELLA and V-SHARP demonstrated good reproducibility at 3 T and 1.5 T, and QSM with V-SHARP demonstrated good consistency at 3 T and 1.5 T.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the consistency and reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) at 3-T and 1.5-T magnetic resonance (MR) scanners. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was approved by institutional ethics committee, and written informed consent was obtained. Twenty-two healthy volunteers underwent 2 examinations on different days. Each examination consisted of MR imaging on both 3-T and 1.5-T MR scanners. The data from both scanners and examination days were obtained, and QSM was calculated with STI Suite using 2 different algorithms--harmonic phase removal using laplacian operator (HARPERELLA) and a sophisticated harmonic artifact reduction for phase data (SHARP) method with a variable radius of the spherical kernel at the brain boundary (V-SHARP). We evaluated consistency of QSM between 3 T and 1.5 T and the reproducibility between the first and second examinations using 2-phase processing methods (HARPERELLA and V-SHARP). RESULTS: Susceptibility values of regions of interests at 3 T were highly correlated with those at 1.5 T with good agreement (HARPERELLA, R2 = 0.838; V-SHARP, R2 = 0.898) (average difference, ±1.96 SD; HARPERELLA, -0.012 ± 0.046; V-SHARP, -0.002 ± 0.034). Reproducibility analysis demonstrated excellent correlation between the first and second examination at both 3 T and 1.5 T for both algorithms (HARPERELLA at 3 T, R2 = 0.921; 1.5 T, R2 = 0.891; V-SHARP at 3 T, R2 = 0.937; 1.5 T, R2 = 0.926). Bland-Altman analysis showed excellent reproducibility for HARPERELLA (3 T, -0.003 ± 0.032; 1.5 T, -0.003 ± 0.038) and V-SHARP (3 T, -0.003 ± 0.027; 1.5 T, -0.003 ± 0.029). Susceptibility values of these 2 algorithms were highly correlated with good agreement (3T, R2 = 0.961; 1.5 T, R = 0.931) (3 T, 0.009 ± 0.023; 1.5 T, -0.003 ± 0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping with HARPERELLA and V-SHARP demonstrated good reproducibility at 3 T and 1.5 T, and QSM with V-SHARP demonstrated good consistency at 3 T and 1.5 T.
Authors: Jannis Hanspach; Michael G Dwyer; Niels P Bergsland; Xiang Feng; Jesper Hagemeier; Nicola Bertolino; Paul Polak; Jürgen R Reichenbach; Robert Zivadinov; Ferdinand Schweser Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Yi Wang; Pascal Spincemaille; Zhe Liu; Alexey Dimov; Kofi Deh; Jianqi Li; Yan Zhang; Yihao Yao; Kelly M Gillen; Alan H Wilman; Ajay Gupta; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jonathan W Weinsaft; Lawrence Tanenbaum; Weiwei Chen; Wenzhen Zhu; Shixin Chang; Min Lou; Brian H Kopell; Michael G Kaplitt; David Devos; Toshinori Hirai; Xuemei Huang; Yukunori Korogi; Alexander Shtilbans; Geon-Ho Jahng; Daniel Pelletier; Susan A Gauthier; David Pitt; Ashley I Bush; Gary M Brittenham; Martin R Prince Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-03-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Andrew W Gorman; Kofi M Deh; Caspar M Schwiedrzik; Julie R White; Ernest Victor Groman; Clark A Fisher; Kelly M Gillen; Pascal Spincemaille; Skye Rasmussen; Martin R Prince; Henning U Voss; Winrich A Freiwald; Yi Wang Journal: Comp Med Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 0.982
Authors: Kofi Deh; Keigo Kawaji; Marjolein Bulk; Louise Van Der Weerd; Emelie Lind; Pascal Spincemaille; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Johan Van Auderkerke; Yi Wang; Thanh D Nguyen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.668