Kathryn E Keenan1, Adele P Peskin2, Lisa J Wilmes3, Sheye O Aliu3, Ella F Jones3, Wen Li3, John Kornak4, David C Newitt3, Nola M Hylton3. 1. Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, USA. kathryn.keenan@nist.gov. 2. Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 3. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of a recent, anatomically designed breast phantom incorporating T1 and diffusion elements to serve as a quality control device for quantitative comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements calculated from diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) within and across MRI systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bilateral breast phantom incorporating multiple T1 and diffusion tissue mimics and a geometric distortion array was imaged with DWI on 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T scanners from two different manufacturers, using three different breast coils (three configurations total). Multiple measurements were acquired to assess the bias and variability of different diffusion weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging sequences on the scanner-coil systems. RESULTS: The repeatability of ADC measurements was mixed: the standard deviation relative to baseline across scanner-coil-sequences ranged from low variability (0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-1.00) to high variability (1.69, 95% CI: 0.17-17.26), depending on material, with the lowest and highest variability from the same scanner-coil-sequence. Assessment of image distortion showed that right/left measurements of the geometric distortion array were 1 to 16% larger on the left coil side compared with the right coil side independent of scanner-coil systems, diffusion weighting, and phase-encoding direction. CONCLUSION: This breast phantom can be used to measure scanner-coil-sequence bias and variability for DWI. When establishing a multisystem study, this breast phantom may be used to minimize protocol differences (e.g., due to available sequences or shimming technique), to correct for bias that cannot be minimized, and to weigh results from each system depending on respective variability. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2016;44:846-855.
PURPOSE: To assess the ability of a recent, anatomically designed breast phantom incorporating T1 and diffusion elements to serve as a quality control device for quantitative comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements calculated from diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) within and across MRI systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A bilateral breast phantom incorporating multiple T1 and diffusion tissue mimics and a geometric distortion array was imaged with DWI on 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3.0T scanners from two different manufacturers, using three different breast coils (three configurations total). Multiple measurements were acquired to assess the bias and variability of different diffusion weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging sequences on the scanner-coil systems. RESULTS: The repeatability of ADC measurements was mixed: the standard deviation relative to baseline across scanner-coil-sequences ranged from low variability (0.47, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22-1.00) to high variability (1.69, 95% CI: 0.17-17.26), depending on material, with the lowest and highest variability from the same scanner-coil-sequence. Assessment of image distortion showed that right/left measurements of the geometric distortion array were 1 to 16% larger on the left coil side compared with the right coil side independent of scanner-coil systems, diffusion weighting, and phase-encoding direction. CONCLUSION: This breast phantom can be used to measure scanner-coil-sequence bias and variability for DWI. When establishing a multisystem study, this breast phantom may be used to minimize protocol differences (e.g., due to available sequences or shimming technique), to correct for bias that cannot be minimized, and to weigh results from each system depending on respective variability. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2016;44:846-855.
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: Savannah C Partridge; Christiane D Mullins; Brenda F Kurland; Michael D Allain; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: David C Newitt; Ek T Tan; Lisa J Wilmes; Thomas L Chenevert; John Kornak; Luca Marinelli; Nola Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Melanie Freed; Jacco A de Zwart; Jennifer T Loud; Riham H El Khouli; Kyle J Myers; Mark H Greene; Jeff H Duyn; Aldo Badano Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Wen Li; David C Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Ella F Jones; Vignesh Arasu; Jessica Gibbs; Bo La Yun; Elizabeth Li; Savannah C Partridge; John Kornak; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Thomas L Chenevert; Scott D Swanson; Brian D Ross; Dariya I Malyarenko Journal: Med Phys Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Friedrich Wagner; Frederik B Laun; Tristan A Kuder; Anna Mlynarska; Florian Maier; Jonas Faust; Kerstin Demberg; Linus Lindemann; Boris Rivkin; Armin M Nagel; Mark E Ladd; Klaus Maier-Hein; Sebastian Bickelhaupt; Michael Bach Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: N M deSouza; J M Winfield; J C Waterton; A Weller; M-V Papoutsaki; S J Doran; D J Collins; L Fournier; D Sullivan; T Chenevert; A Jackson; M Boss; S Trattnig; Y Liu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Kay J J van der Hoogt; Robert J Schipper; Gonneke A Winter-Warnars; Leon C Ter Beek; Claudette E Loo; Ritse M Mann; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2021-12-18
Authors: Alexandra H Besser; Lauren K Fang; Michelle W Tong; Maren M Sjaastad Andreassen; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Christopher C Conlin; Stéphane Loubrie; Tyler M Seibert; Michael E Hahn; Joshua M Kuperman; Anne M Wallace; Anders M Dale; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2022-06-30 Impact factor: 6.575