Anna G Sorace1,2,3, Chengyue Wu3, Stephanie L Barnes3,4, Angela M Jarrett4, Sarah Avery5, Debra Patt6, Boone Goodgame7,8, Jeffery J Luci3,9, Hakmook Kang10, Richard G Abramson11, Thomas E Yankeelov1,2,3,4, John Virostko1,2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 2. Livestrong Cancer Institutes, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 4. Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 5. Austin Radiological Association, Austin, Texas, USA. 6. Texas Oncology, Austin, Texas, USA. 7. Seton Hospital, Austin, Texas, USA. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 9. Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA. 10. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA. 11. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) have the potential to impact patient care by providing noninvasive biological information in breast cancer. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To quantify the repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T1 -mapping of the breast in community radiology practices. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: Ice-water DW-MRI and T1 gel phantoms were used to assess accuracy. Normal subjects (n = 3) and phantoms across three sites (one academic, two community) were used to assess reproducibility. Test-retest analysis at one site in normal subjects (n = 12) was used to assess repeatability. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T Siemens Skyra MRI quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping. ASSESSMENT: Quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping parametric maps of phantoms and fibroglandular and adipose tissue of the breast. STATISTICAL TESTS: Average values of breast tissue were quantified and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the repeatability of the MRI techniques, while the Friedman test assessed reproducibility. RESULTS: ADC measurements were reproducible across sites, with an average difference of 1.6% in an ice-water phantom and 7.0% in breast fibroglandular tissue. T1 measurements in gel phantoms had an average difference of 2.8% across three sites, whereas breast fibroglandular and adipose tissue had 8.4% and 7.5% average differences, respectively. In the repeatability study, we found no bias between first and second scanning sessions (P = 0.1). The difference between repeated measurements was independent of the mean for each MRI metric (P = 0.156, P = 0.862, P = 0.197 for ADC, T1 of fibroglandular tissue, and T1 of adipose tissue, respectively). DATA CONCLUSION: Community radiology practices can perform repeatable, reproducible, and accurate quantitative T1 -mapping and DW-MRI. This has the potential to dramatically expand the number of sites that can participate in multisite clinical trials and increase clinical translation of quantitative MRI techniques for cancer response assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) have the potential to impact patient care by providing noninvasive biological information in breast cancer. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To quantify the repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T1 -mapping of the breast in community radiology practices. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: Ice-water DW-MRI and T1 gel phantoms were used to assess accuracy. Normal subjects (n = 3) and phantoms across three sites (one academic, two community) were used to assess reproducibility. Test-retest analysis at one site in normal subjects (n = 12) was used to assess repeatability. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T Siemens Skyra MRI quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping. ASSESSMENT: Quantitative DW-MRI and T1 -mapping parametric maps of phantoms and fibroglandular and adipose tissue of the breast. STATISTICAL TESTS: Average values of breast tissue were quantified and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the repeatability of the MRI techniques, while the Friedman test assessed reproducibility. RESULTS: ADC measurements were reproducible across sites, with an average difference of 1.6% in an ice-water phantom and 7.0% in breast fibroglandular tissue. T1 measurements in gel phantoms had an average difference of 2.8% across three sites, whereas breast fibroglandular and adipose tissue had 8.4% and 7.5% average differences, respectively. In the repeatability study, we found no bias between first and second scanning sessions (P = 0.1). The difference between repeated measurements was independent of the mean for each MRI metric (P = 0.156, P = 0.862, P = 0.197 for ADC, T1 of fibroglandular tissue, and T1 of adipose tissue, respectively). DATA CONCLUSION: Community radiology practices can perform repeatable, reproducible, and accurate quantitative T1 -mapping and DW-MRI. This has the potential to dramatically expand the number of sites that can participate in multisite clinical trials and increase clinical translation of quantitative MRI techniques for cancer response assessment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; Martin Lepage; Anuradha Chakravarthy; Elizabeth E Broome; Kenneth J Niermann; Mark C Kelley; Ingrid Meszoely; Ingrid A Mayer; Cheryl R Herman; Kevin McManus; Ronald R Price; John C Gore Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2006-11-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Gayane Hovhannisyan; Lorraine Chow; Alexandra Schlosser; Martin J Yaffe; Norman F Boyd; Lisa J Martin Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-06-30 Impact factor: 4.254
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: Tess V Clendenen; Sungheon Kim; Linda Moy; Livia Wan; Henry Rusinek; Frank Z Stanczyk; Malcolm C Pike; Anne Zeleniuch-Jacquotte Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-08-13 Impact factor: 2.546
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: Jin You Kim; Hie Bum Suh; Hyun Jung Kang; Jong Ki Shin; Ki Seok Choo; Kyung Jin Nam; Seok Won Lee; Young Lae Jung; Young Tae Bae Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Thomas E Yankeelov; David A Mankoff; Lawrence H Schwartz; Frank S Lieberman; John M Buatti; James M Mountz; Bradley J Erickson; Fiona M M Fennessy; Wei Huang; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Richard L Wahl; Hannah M Linden; Paul E Kinahan; Binsheng Zhao; Nola M Hylton; Robert J Gillies; Laurence Clarke; Robert Nordstrom; Daniel L Rubin Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: David A Hormuth; Angela M Jarrett; Ernesto A B F Lima; Matthew T McKenna; David T Fuentes; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-02
Authors: Chengyue Wu; Angela M Jarrett; Zijian Zhou; Nabil Elshafeey; Beatriz E Adrada; Rosalind P Candelaria; Rania M M Mohamed; Medine Boge; Lei Huo; Jason B White; Debu Tripathy; Vicente Valero; Jennifer K Litton; Clinton Yam; Jong Bum Son; Jingfei Ma; Gaiane M Rauch; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Cancer Res Date: 2022-09-16 Impact factor: 13.312
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Jana G Delfino; Kalina V Jordanova; Megan E Poorman; Prathyush Chirra; Akshay S Chaudhari; Bettina Baessler; Jessica Winfield; Satish E Viswanath; Nandita M deSouza Journal: Med Phys Date: 2021-09-29 Impact factor: 4.506
Authors: Michael A Boss; Bradley S Snyder; Eunhee Kim; Dena Flamini; Sarah Englander; Karthik M Sundaram; Naveen Gumpeni; Suzanne L Palmer; Haesun Choi; Adam T Froemming; Thorsten Persigehl; Matthew S Davenport; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: David C Newitt; Zheng Zhang; Jessica E Gibbs; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert; Mark A Rosen; Patrick J Bolan; Helga S Marques; Sheye Aliu; Wen Li; Lisa Cimino; Bonnie N Joe; Heidi Umphrey; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Basak Dogan; Karen Oh; Hiroyuki Abe; Jennifer Drukteinis; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-10-22 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: 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: Anum K Syed; Jennifer G Whisenant; Stephanie L Barnes; Anna G Sorace; Thomas E Yankeelov Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-06-24 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Amita Shukla-Dave; Nancy A Obuchowski; Thomas L Chenevert; Sachin Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Dariya Malyarenko; Wei Huang; Susan M Noworolski; Robert J Young; Mark S Shiroishi; Harrison Kim; Catherine Coolens; Hendrik Laue; Caroline Chung; Mark Rosen; Michael Boss; Edward F Jackson Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 5.119