Xiaopeng Zhou1, Ken E Sakaie2, Josef P Debbins3, Sridar Narayanan4, Robert J Fox5, Mark J Lowe6. 1. School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA. 2. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 3. Barrow Neurological Institute, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, 350 W Thomas Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85013, USA. 4. McConnell Brain Imaging Centre, Montreal Neurological Institute, 3801 University St., Montreal, QC H3A2B4, Canada; NeuroRx Research, 3575 Avenue du Parc, Suite 5322, Montreal, QC, H2X 3P9, Canada. 5. Neurological Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. 6. Imaging Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Cleveland, OH 44195, USA. Electronic address: lowem1@ccf.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess intrascanner repeatability and cross-scanner comparability for diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) metrics in a multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: DTI metrics (including longitudinal diffusivity [LD], fractional anisotropy [FA], mean diffusivity [MD], and transverse diffusivity [TD]) from pyramidal tracts for healthy controls were calculated from images acquired on twenty-seven 3T MR scanners (Siemens and GE) with 6 different scanner models and 7 different software versions as part of the NN102/SPRINT-MS clinical trial. Each volunteer underwent two scanning sessions on the same scanner. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal-to-noise floor ratio (SNFR) were also assessed. RESULTS: DTI metrics showed good scan-rescan repeatability. There were no significant differences between scans and rescans in LD, FA, MD, or TD values. Although the cross-scanner coefficient of variation (CV) values for all DTI metrics were <5.7%, significant differences were observed for LD (p < 3.3e-5) and FA (p < 0.0024) when GE scanners were compared with Siemens scanners. Significant differences were also observed for SNR when comparing GE scanners and Siemens Skyra scanners (p < 1.4e-7) and when comparing Siemens Skyra scanners and TIM Trio scanners (p < 1.0e-10). Analysis of background signal also demonstrated differences between GE and Siemens scanners in terms of signal statistics. The measured signal intensity from a background noise region of interest was significantly higher for GE scanners than for Siemens scanners (p < 1.2e-12). Significant differences were also observed for SNFR when comparing GE scanners and Siemens Skyra scanners (p < 2.5e-11), GE scanners and Siemens Trio scanners (p < 7.5e-11), and Siemens Skyra scanners and TIM Trio scanners (p < 2.5e-9). CONCLUSIONS: The good repeatability of the DTI metrics among the 27 scanners used in this study confirms the feasibility of combining DTI data from multiple centers using high angular resolution sequences. Our observations support the feasibility of longitudinal multicenter clinical trials using DTI outcome measures. The noise floor level and SNFR are important parameters that must be assessed when comparing studies that used different scanner models.
PURPOSE: To assess intrascanner repeatability and cross-scanner comparability for diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) metrics in a multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: DTI metrics (including longitudinal diffusivity [LD], fractional anisotropy [FA], mean diffusivity [MD], and transverse diffusivity [TD]) from pyramidal tracts for healthy controls were calculated from images acquired on twenty-seven 3T MR scanners (Siemens and GE) with 6 different scanner models and 7 different software versions as part of the NN102/SPRINT-MS clinical trial. Each volunteer underwent two scanning sessions on the same scanner. Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and signal-to-noise floor ratio (SNFR) were also assessed. RESULTS: DTI metrics showed good scan-rescan repeatability. There were no significant differences between scans and rescans in LD, FA, MD, or TD values. Although the cross-scanner coefficient of variation (CV) values for all DTI metrics were <5.7%, significant differences were observed for LD (p < 3.3e-5) and FA (p < 0.0024) when GE scanners were compared with Siemens scanners. Significant differences were also observed for SNR when comparing GE scanners and Siemens Skyra scanners (p < 1.4e-7) and when comparing Siemens Skyra scanners and TIM Trio scanners (p < 1.0e-10). Analysis of background signal also demonstrated differences between GE and Siemens scanners in terms of signal statistics. The measured signal intensity from a background noise region of interest was significantly higher for GE scanners than for Siemens scanners (p < 1.2e-12). Significant differences were also observed for SNFR when comparing GE scanners and Siemens Skyra scanners (p < 2.5e-11), GE scanners and Siemens Trio scanners (p < 7.5e-11), and Siemens Skyra scanners and TIM Trio scanners (p < 2.5e-9). CONCLUSIONS: The good repeatability of the DTI metrics among the 27 scanners used in this study confirms the feasibility of combining DTI data from multiple centers using high angular resolution sequences. Our observations support the feasibility of longitudinal multicenter clinical trials using DTI outcome measures. The noise floor level and SNFR are important parameters that must be assessed when comparing studies that used different scanner models.
Authors: Stefan J Teipel; Sigrid Reuter; Bram Stieltjes; Julio Acosta-Cabronero; Ulrike Ernemann; Andreas Fellgiebel; Massimo Filippi; Giovanni Frisoni; Frank Hentschel; Frank Jessen; Stefan Klöppel; Thomas Meindl; Petra J W Pouwels; Karl-Heinz Hauenstein; Harald Hampel Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2011-11-09 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Kilian M Pohl; Edith V Sullivan; Torsten Rohlfing; Weiwei Chu; Dongjin Kwon; B Nolan Nichols; Yong Zhang; Sandra A Brown; Susan F Tapert; Kevin Cummins; Wesley K Thompson; Ty Brumback; Ian M Colrain; Fiona C Baker; Devin Prouty; Michael D De Bellis; James T Voyvodic; Duncan B Clark; Claudiu Schirda; Bonnie J Nagel; Adolf Pfefferbaum Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2016-02-10 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Stephen M Smith; Mark Jenkinson; Mark W Woolrich; Christian F Beckmann; Timothy E J Behrens; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Peter R Bannister; Marilena De Luca; Ivana Drobnjak; David E Flitney; Rami K Niazy; James Saunders; John Vickers; Yongyue Zhang; Nicola De Stefano; J Michael Brady; Paul M Matthews Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2004 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Vijay K Venkatraman; Christopher E Gonzalez; Bennett Landman; Joshua Goh; David A Reiter; Yang An; Susan M Resnick Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-07-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Shiva Keihaninejad; Hui Zhang; Natalie S Ryan; Ian B Malone; Marc Modat; M Jorge Cardoso; David M Cash; Nick C Fox; Sebastien Ourselin Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2013-01-28 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Christian Vollmar; Jonathan O'Muircheartaigh; Gareth J Barker; Mark R Symms; Pamela Thompson; Veena Kumari; John S Duncan; Mark P Richardson; Matthias J Koepp Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2010-03-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Cristina Granziera; Jens Wuerfel; Frederik Barkhof; Massimiliano Calabrese; Nicola De Stefano; Christian Enzinger; Nikos Evangelou; Massimo Filippi; Jeroen J G Geurts; Daniel S Reich; Maria A Rocca; Stefan Ropele; Àlex Rovira; Pascal Sati; Ahmed T Toosy; Hugo Vrenken; Claudia A M Gandini Wheeler-Kingshott; Ludwig Kappos Journal: Brain Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 13.501
Authors: Anna K Prohl; Benoit Scherrer; Xavier Tomas-Fernandez; Rajna Filip-Dhima; Kush Kapur; Clemente Velasco-Annis; Sean Clancy; Erin Carmody; Meghan Dean; Molly Valle; Sanjay P Prabhu; Jurriaan M Peters; E Martina Bebin; Darcy A Krueger; Hope Northrup; Joyce Y Wu; Mustafa Sahin; Simon K Warfield Journal: Front Integr Neurosci Date: 2019-07-17
Authors: Pedro A Luque Laguna; Anna J E Combes; Johannes Streffer; Steven Einstein; Maarten Timmers; Steve C R Williams; Flavio Dell'Acqua Journal: Neuroimage Clin Date: 2020-01-25 Impact factor: 4.881
Authors: Kengo Onda; Eva Catenaccio; Jill Chotiyanonta; Raul Chavez-Valdez; Avner Meoded; Bruno P Soares; Aylin Tekes; Harisa Spahic; Sarah C Miller; Sarah-Jane Parker; Charlamaine Parkinson; Dhananjay M Vaidya; Ernest M Graham; Carl E Stafstrom; Allen D Everett; Frances J Northington; Kenichi Oishi Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2022-08-02 Impact factor: 5.152
Authors: Christine Lock; Janell Kwok; Sumeet Kumar; Azlina Ahmad-Annuar; Vairavan Narayanan; Adeline S L Ng; Yi Jayne Tan; Nagaendran Kandiah; Eng-King Tan; Zofia Czosnyka; Marek Czosnyka; John D Pickard; Nicole C Keong Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2019-01-10
Authors: Eric E Smith; Geert Jan Biessels; François De Guio; Frank Erik de Leeuw; Simon Duchesne; Marco Düring; Richard Frayne; M Arfan Ikram; Eric Jouvent; Bradley J MacIntosh; Michael J Thrippleton; Meike W Vernooij; Hieab Adams; Walter H Backes; Lucia Ballerini; Sandra E Black; Christopher Chen; Rod Corriveau; Charles DeCarli; Steven M Greenberg; M Edip Gurol; Michael Ingrisch; Dominic Job; Bonnie Y K Lam; Lenore J Launer; Jennifer Linn; Cheryl R McCreary; Vincent C T Mok; Leonardo Pantoni; G Bruce Pike; Joel Ramirez; Yael D Reijmer; Jose Rafael Romero; Stefan Ropele; Natalia S Rost; Perminder S Sachdev; Christopher J M Scott; Sudha Seshadri; Mukul Sharma; Steven Sourbron; Rebecca M E Steketee; Richard H Swartz; Robert van Oostenbrugge; Matthias van Osch; Sanneke van Rooden; Anand Viswanathan; David Werring; Martin Dichgans; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Alzheimers Dement (Amst) Date: 2019-02-26
Authors: Ken Sakaie; Janel K Fedler; Jon W Yankey; Kunio Nakamura; Josef Debbins; Mark J Lowe; Paola Raska; Robert J Fox Journal: Mult Scler J Exp Transl Clin Date: 2021-05-18