Octavia Bane1,2, Stefanie J Hectors1,2, Mathilde Wagner1,2, Lori L Arlinghaus3, Madhava P Aryal4, Yue Cao4, Thomas L Chenevert5, Fiona Fennessy6, Wei Huang7, Nola M Hylton8, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer9, Kathryn E Keenan10, Dariya I Malyarenko5, Robert V Mulkern6, David C Newitt8, Stephen E Russek10, Karl F Stupic10, Alina Tudorica11, Lisa J Wilmes8, Thomas E Yankeelov12, Yi-Fei Yen9, Michael A Boss10, Bachir Taouli1,2. 1. Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA. 3. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 4. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 7. Advanced Imaging Research Center, Knight Cancer Institute, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, University of California-San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 9. Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 10. Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 12. Department of Radiology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. METHODS: A T1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. RESULTS: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4-5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T1 sample (P < 10-6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2-8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10-6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7-32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7-25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2-3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). CONCLUSIONS: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564-2575, 2018.
PURPOSE: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. METHODS: A T1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. RESULTS: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4-5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T1 sample (P < 10-6 ), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2-8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10-6 ). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7-32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7-25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2-3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). CONCLUSIONS: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564-2575, 2018.
Authors: Brian M Dale; John A Jesberger; Jonathan S Lewin; Claudia M Hillenbrand; Jeffrey L Duerk Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Neil P Jerome; Marianthi-Vasiliki Papoutsaki; Matthew R Orton; Harold G Parkes; Jessica M Winfield; Michael A Boss; Martin O Leach; Nandita M deSouza; David J Collins Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Thomas L Chenevert; Dariya I Malyarenko; David Newitt; Xin Li; Mohan Jayatilake; Alina Tudorica; Andriy Fedorov; Ron Kikinis; Tiffany Ting Liu; Mark Muzi; Matthew J Oborski; Charles M Laymon; Xia Li; Yankeelov Thomas; Kalpathy-Cramer Jayashree; James M Mountz; Paul E Kinahan; Daniel L Rubin; Fiona Fennessy; Wei Huang; Nola Hylton; Brian D Ross Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David A Hormuth; Anna G Sorace; John Virostko; Richard G Abramson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; Pedro Enriquez-Navas; Robert Gillies; John D Hazle; Ralph P Mason; C Chad Quarles; Jared A Weis; Jennifer G Whisenant; Junzhong Xu; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-03-29 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Asser A Elkassem; Samuel J Galgano; Suzanne E Lapi; Benjamin M Larimer; Savannah C Partridge; C Chad Quarles; Kirsten Reeves; Tiara S Napier; Patrick N Song; Thomas E Yankeelov; Stefanie Woodard; Andrew D Smith Journal: Semin Nucl Med Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.446
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: T Demerath; K Blackham; C Anastasopoulos; K T Block; B Stieltjes; T Schubert Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Chengyue Wu; David A Hormuth; Todd A Oliver; Federico Pineda; Guillermo Lorenzo; Gregory S Karczmar; Robert D Moser; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Anna G Sorace; Chengyue Wu; Stephanie L Barnes; Angela M Jarrett; Sarah Avery; Debra Patt; Boone Goodgame; Jeffery J Luci; Hakmook Kang; Richard G Abramson; Thomas E Yankeelov; John Virostko Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.813