Roberto Sghedoni1, Angela Coniglio2, Lorenzo Nicola Mazzoni3, Simone Busoni4, Giacomo Belli4, Roberto Tarducci5, Luca Nocetti6, Luca Fedeli7, Marco Esposito8, Antonio Ciccarone9, Luisa Altabella10, Alessandro Bellini11, Luca Binotto12, Rocchina Caivano13, Marco Carnì14, Alessandra Ricci15, Sara Cimolai16, Davide D'Urso16, Chiara Gasperi17, Fabrizio Levrero18, Paola Mangili10, Sabrina Morzenti19, Andrea Nitrosi20, Nadia Oberhofer21, Nicoletta Parruccini19, Alessandra Toncelli22, Lucia Maria Valastro23, Cesare Gori4, Gianni Gobbi5, Marco Giannelli24. 1. Medical Physics Unit, Azienda USL - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 2. Medical Physics Unit, Ospedale San Giovanni Calibita Fatebenefratelli, Roma, Italy. Electronic address: coniglio.fbf.isola@gmail.com. 3. Health Physics Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Pistoia, Italy. 4. Health Physics Unit, AOU Careggi, Firenze, Italy. 5. Health Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia, Italy. 6. Health Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera di Modena, Modena, Italy. 7. Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Florence, Firenze, Italy. 8. Health Physics Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Centro, Firenze, Italy. 9. Health Physics Unit, AOU Meyer, Firenze, Italy. 10. Medical Physics Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele, Milano, Italy. 11. Health Sciences Department, University of Genova, Genova, Italy. 12. Medical Physics Unit, Azienda ULSS 3 Serenissima, Mestre, Italy. 13. Radiotherapy and Health Physics Unit, IRCCS CROB, Rionero in Vulture - Potenza, Italy. 14. Health Physics Unit, Policlinico Umberto I, Roma, Italy. 15. Health Physics Unit, ASL Viterbo, Viterbo, Italy. 16. Health Physics Unit, Azienda ULSS 2 Marca Trevigiana, Treviso, Italy. 17. Health Physics Unit, Azienda USL Toscana Sud Est, Arezzo, Italy. 18. Medical and Health Physics Unit, IRCCS AOU San Martino, Genova, Italy. 19. Health Physics Unit, ASST, Monza, Italy. 20. Medical Physics Unit, Arcispedale Santa Maria Nuova - IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy. 21. Health Physics, Azienda Sanitaria della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Bolzano, Italy. 22. Department of Physics, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. 23. Health Physics Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera Cannizzaro, Catania, Italy. 24. Unit of Medical Physics, Pisa University Hospital "Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana", Pisa, Italy.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to propose and validate across various clinical scanner systems a straightforward multiparametric quality assurance procedure for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). METHODS: Eighteen clinical 1.5 T and 3 T scanner systems for MRS, from 16 centres and 3 different manufacturers, were enrolled in the study. A standard spherical water phantom was employed by all centres. The acquisition protocol included 3 sets of single (isotropic) voxel (size 20 mm) PRESS acquisitions with unsuppressed water signal and acquisition voxel position at isocenter as well as off-center, repeated 4/5 times within approximately 2 months. Water peak linewidth (LW) and area under the water peak (AP) were estimated. RESULTS: LW values [mean (standard deviation)] were 1.4 (1.0) Hz and 0.8 (0.3) Hz for 3 T and 1.5 T scanners, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) (across all scanners) coefficient of variation of LW and AP for different spatial positions of acquisition voxel were 43% (20%) and 11% (11%), respectively. The mean (standard deviation) phantom T2values were 1145 (50) ms and 1010 (95) ms for 1.5 T and 3 T scanners, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) (across all scanners) coefficients of variation for repeated measurements of LW, AP and T2 were 25% (20%), 10% (14%) and 5% (2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed a straightforward multiparametric and not time consuming quality control protocol for MRS, which can be included in routine and periodic quality assurance procedures. The protocol has been validated and proven to be feasible in a multicentre comparison study of a fairly large number of clinical 1.5 T and 3 T scanner systems.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to propose and validate across various clinical scanner systems a straightforward multiparametric quality assurance procedure for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). METHODS: Eighteen clinical 1.5 T and 3 T scanner systems for MRS, from 16 centres and 3 different manufacturers, were enrolled in the study. A standard spherical water phantom was employed by all centres. The acquisition protocol included 3 sets of single (isotropic) voxel (size 20 mm) PRESS acquisitions with unsuppressed water signal and acquisition voxel position at isocenter as well as off-center, repeated 4/5 times within approximately 2 months. Water peak linewidth (LW) and area under the water peak (AP) were estimated. RESULTS: LW values [mean (standard deviation)] were 1.4 (1.0) Hz and 0.8 (0.3) Hz for 3 T and 1.5 T scanners, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) (across all scanners) coefficient of variation of LW and AP for different spatial positions of acquisition voxel were 43% (20%) and 11% (11%), respectively. The mean (standard deviation) phantom T2values were 1145 (50) ms and 1010 (95) ms for 1.5 T and 3 T scanners, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) (across all scanners) coefficients of variation for repeated measurements of LW, AP and T2 were 25% (20%), 10% (14%) and 5% (2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed a straightforward multiparametric and not time consuming quality control protocol for MRS, which can be included in routine and periodic quality assurance procedures. The protocol has been validated and proven to be feasible in a multicentre comparison study of a fairly large number of clinical 1.5 T and 3 T scanner systems.
Authors: Yuxi Pang; Dariya I Malyarenko; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Enzo Barberi; Michael Cole; Axel Vom Endt; Johannes Peeters; Ek T Tan; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Phys Med Date: 2021-06-06 Impact factor: 3.119