Sabrina Doblas1, Gilberto S Almeida2, François-Xavier Blé3, Philippe Garteiser1, Benjamin A Hoff4, Dominick J O McIntyre5, Lydia Wachsmuth6, Thomas L Chenevert4, Cornelius Faber6, John R Griffiths5, Andreas H Jacobs7, David M Morris8, James P B O'Connor9, Simon P Robinson2, Bernard E Van Beers1, John C Waterton8. 1. Laboratory of imaging biomarkers, UMR 1149 - CRI, Inserm, Paris Diderot University, Paris, France. 2. Division of Radiotherapy and Imaging, Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK. 3. Personalised Healthcare & Biomarkers, AstraZeneca, Macclesfield, UK. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. CRUK Cambridge Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. 6. Department of Clinical Radiology, Münster University Hospital, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany. 7. European Institute for Molecular Imaging, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität, Münster, Germany. 8. Centre for Imaging Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 9. Institute of Cancer Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate between-site agreement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in preclinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A miniaturized thermally stable ice-water phantom was devised. ADC (mean and interquartile range) was measured over several days, on 4.7T, 7T, and 9.4T Bruker, Agilent, and Magnex small-animal MRI systems using a common protocol across seven sites. Day-to-day repeatability was expressed as percent variation of mean ADC between acquisitions. Cross-site reproducibility was expressed as 1.96 × standard deviation of percent deviation of ADC values. RESULTS: ADC measurements were equivalent across all seven sites with a cross-site ADC reproducibility of 6.3%. Mean day-to-day repeatability of ADC measurements was 2.3%, and no site was identified as presenting different measurements than others (analysis of variance [ANOVA] P = 0.02, post-hoc test n.s.). Between-slice ADC variability was negligible and similar between sites (P = 0.15). Mean within-region-of-interest ADC variability was 5.5%, with one site presenting a significantly greater variation than the others (P = 0.0013). CONCLUSION: Absolute ADC values in preclinical studies are comparable between sites and equipment, provided standardized protocols are employed.
PURPOSE: To evaluate between-site agreement of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in preclinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A miniaturized thermally stable ice-water phantom was devised. ADC (mean and interquartile range) was measured over several days, on 4.7T, 7T, and 9.4T Bruker, Agilent, and Magnex small-animal MRI systems using a common protocol across seven sites. Day-to-day repeatability was expressed as percent variation of mean ADC between acquisitions. Cross-site reproducibility was expressed as 1.96 × standard deviation of percent deviation of ADC values. RESULTS: ADC measurements were equivalent across all seven sites with a cross-site ADC reproducibility of 6.3%. Mean day-to-day repeatability of ADC measurements was 2.3%, and no site was identified as presenting different measurements than others (analysis of variance [ANOVA] P = 0.02, post-hoc test n.s.). Between-slice ADC variability was negligible and similar between sites (P = 0.15). Mean within-region-of-interest ADC variability was 5.5%, with one site presenting a significantly greater variation than the others (P = 0.0013). CONCLUSION: Absolute ADC values in preclinical studies are comparable between sites and equipment, provided standardized protocols are employed.
Authors: Larry G Kessler; Huiman X Barnhart; Andrew J Buckler; Kingshuk Roy Choudhury; Marina V Kondratovich; Alicia Toledano; Alexander R Guimaraes; Ross Filice; Zheng Zhang; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: Stat Methods Med Res Date: 2014-06-11 Impact factor: 3.021
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: Jennifer G Whisenant; Gregory D Ayers; Mary E Loveless; Stephanie L Barnes; Daniel C Colvin; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Dow-Mu Koh; Matthew Blackledge; David J Collins; Anwar R Padhani; Toni Wallace; Benjamin Wilton; N Jane Taylor; J James Stirling; Rajesh Sinha; Pat Walicke; Martin O Leach; Ian Judson; Paul Nathan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Nicolas F Michoux; Jakub W Ceranka; Jef Vandemeulebroucke; Frank Peeters; Pierre Lu; Julie Absil; Perrine Triqueneaux; Yan Liu; Laurence Collette; Inneke Willekens; Carola Brussaard; Olivier Debeir; Stephan Hahn; Hubert Raeymaekers; Johan de Mey; Thierry Metens; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Joshua R Biller; Jana G Delfino; Michael A Boss; Mark D Does; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Mark A Griswold; Jeffrey L Gunter; R Scott Hinks; Stuart W Hoffman; Geena Kim; Riccardo Lattanzi; Xiaojuan Li; Luca Marinelli; Gregory J Metzger; Pratik Mukherjee; Robert J Nordstrom; Adele P Peskin; Elena Perez; Stephen E Russek; Berkman Sahiner; Natalie Serkova; Amita Shukla-Dave; Michael Steckner; Karl F Stupic; Lisa J Wilmes; Holden H Wu; Huiming Zhang; Edward F Jackson; Daniel C Sullivan Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: P D Tar; N A Thacker; M Babur; Y Watson; S Cheung; R A Little; R G Gieling; K J Williams; J P B O'Connor Journal: Bioinformatics Date: 2018-08-01 Impact factor: 6.937
Authors: Christian Hundshammer; Miriam Braeuer; Christoph A Müller; Adam E Hansen; Mathias Schillmaier; Stephan Düwel; Benedikt Feuerecker; Steffen J Glaser; Axel Haase; Wilko Weichert; Katja Steiger; Jorge Cabello; Franz Schilling; Jan-Bernd Hövener; Andreas Kjær; Stephan G Nekolla; Markus Schwaiger Journal: Theranostics Date: 2018-09-09 Impact factor: 11.556