Giacomo Belli1, Simone Busoni2, Antonio Ciccarone3, Angela Coniglio4, Marco Esposito5, Marco Giannelli6, Lorenzo N Mazzoni7, Luca Nocetti8, Roberto Sghedoni9, Roberto Tarducci10, Giovanna Zatelli5, Rosa A Anoja11, Gina Belmonte7, Nicola Bertolino12, Margherita Betti13, Cristiano Biagini14, Alberto Ciarmatori8, Fabiola Cretti15, Emma Fabbri16, Luca Fedeli2, Silvano Filice17, Christian P L Fulcheri10, Chiara Gasperi1, Paola A Mangili18, Silvia Mazzocchi5, Gabriele Meliadò19, Sabrina Morzenti20, Linhsia Noferini2, Nadia Oberhofer21, Laura Orsingher9, Nicoletta Paruccini20, Goffredo Princigalli22, Mariagrazia Quattrocchi23, Adele Rinaldi4, Danilo Scelfo24, Gloria Vilches Freixas25, Leonardo Tenori26, Ileana Zucca27, Claudio Luchinat26, Cesare Gori2, Gianni Gobbi10. 1. Health Physics Unit, USL 8, Arezzo, Italy. 2. Health Physics Unit, AOU Careggi, Florence, Italy. 3. AOU Meyer, Florence, Italy. 4. Medical Physics Department, Fondazione Fatebenefratelli per la Ricerca e la Formazione sanitaria e sociale, San Giovanni Calibita Hospital, Rome, Italy. 5. Health Physics Unit, ASF, Florence, Italy. 6. Health Physics Unit, AOU Pisana, Pisa, Italy. 7. Health Physics Unit, AOU Senese, Siena, Italy. 8. Medical Phisics Department, AOU Policlinico Modena, Italy. 9. Medical Physics Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 10. Health Physics Unit, AOU Perugia, Italy. 11. A.O."Pugliese-Ciaccio," Catanzaro, Italy. 12. UO Direzione Sanitaria, IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy. 13. Health Physics Unit, Centro Oncologico Fiorentino, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. 14. Radiodiagnostic Unit, Centro Oncologico Fiorentino, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. 15. Azienda Ospedaliera Papa Giovanni XXIII, Bergamo, Italy. 16. Health Physics Unit, Ospedale Sant'Orsola-Malpighi, Bologna, Italy. 17. Health Physics Unit, AOU Parma, Italy. 18. Health Physics Unit, IRCCS-San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 19. Health Physics Unit, AOU Verona, Italy. 20. Health Physics Unit, AO San Gerardo, Monza, Italy. 21. Health Physics Unit, Azienda Sanitaria dell'Alto Adige-Ospedale Bolzano, Italy. 22. FISMECO SRL, Rome, Italy. 23. Health Physics Unit, ASL 2-Ospedale Campo di Marte, Lucca, Italy. 24. Department of Developmental Neuroscience, Stella Maris Scientific Institute, Pisa, Italy. 25. CNAO, Pavia, Italy. 26. Magnetic Resonance Center (CERM), University of Florence, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy; FiorGen Foundation, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy. 27. UO Direzione Scientifica, IRCCS Istituto Neurologico Carlo Besta, Milan, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To propose a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality assurance procedure that can be used for multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six centers (35 MR scanners with field strengths: 1T, 1.5T, and 3T) were enrolled in the study. Two different DWI acquisition series (b-value ranges 0-1000 and 0-3000 s/mm(2) , respectively) were performed for each MR scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a cylindrical doped water phantom. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values as well as ADC values along each of the three main orthogonal directions of the diffusion gradients (x, y, and z) were calculated. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was evaluated for 26 MR scanners. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC over all the centers. More than 80% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation and overall standard deviation were 9.3% and 3.5%, respectively. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was found <2.5% for all MR scanners. CONCLUSION: A specific and widely accepted protocol for quality controls in DWI is still lacking. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be applied in order to assess the reliability of DWI-derived indices before tackling single- as well as multicenter studies.
PURPOSE: To propose a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality assurance procedure that can be used for multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six centers (35 MR scanners with field strengths: 1T, 1.5T, and 3T) were enrolled in the study. Two different DWI acquisition series (b-value ranges 0-1000 and 0-3000 s/mm(2) , respectively) were performed for each MR scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a cylindrical doped water phantom. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values as well as ADC values along each of the three main orthogonal directions of the diffusion gradients (x, y, and z) were calculated. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was evaluated for 26 MR scanners. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC over all the centers. More than 80% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation and overall standard deviation were 9.3% and 3.5%, respectively. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was found <2.5% for all MR scanners. CONCLUSION: A specific and widely accepted protocol for quality controls in DWI is still lacking. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be applied in order to assess the reliability of DWI-derived indices before tackling single- as well as multicenter studies.
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: 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: Xiaopeng Zhou; Ken E Sakaie; Josef P Debbins; John E Kirsch; Curtis Tatsuoka; Robert J Fox; Mark J Lowe Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 2.546