PURPOSE: To propose an MRI quality assurance procedure that can be used for routine controls and multi-centre comparison of different MR-scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 44 MR-scanners with different field strengths (1 T, 1.5 T and 3 T) were included in the study. DWI acquisitions (b-value range 0-1000 s/mm2), with three different orthogonal diffusion gradient directions, were performed for each MR-scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a standard spherical plastic doped water phantom. Phantom solution ADC value and its dependence with temperature was measured using a DOSY sequence on a 600 MHz NMR spectrometer. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) along each diffusion gradient direction and mean ADC were estimated, both at magnet isocentre and in six different position 50 mm away from isocentre, along positive and negative AP, RL and HF directions. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC at isocentre: more than 90% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation was 11.3%. Away from isocentre, the effect of the diffusion gradient direction on ADC estimation was larger than 5% in 47% of included scanners and a spatial non uniformity larger than 5% was reported in 13% of centres. CONCLUSION: ADC accuracy and spatial uniformity can vary appreciably depending on MR scanner model, sequence implementation (i.e. gradient diffusion direction) and hardware characteristics. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be employed in order to assess the accuracy and spatial uniformity of estimated ADC values, in single- as well as multi-centre studies.
PURPOSE: To propose an MRI quality assurance procedure that can be used for routine controls and multi-centre comparison of different MR-scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 44 MR-scanners with different field strengths (1 T, 1.5 T and 3 T) were included in the study. DWI acquisitions (b-value range 0-1000 s/mm2), with three different orthogonal diffusion gradient directions, were performed for each MR-scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a standard spherical plastic doped water phantom. Phantom solution ADC value and its dependence with temperature was measured using a DOSY sequence on a 600 MHz NMR spectrometer. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) along each diffusion gradient direction and mean ADC were estimated, both at magnet isocentre and in six different position 50 mm away from isocentre, along positive and negative AP, RL and HF directions. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC at isocentre: more than 90% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation was 11.3%. Away from isocentre, the effect of the diffusion gradient direction on ADC estimation was larger than 5% in 47% of included scanners and a spatial non uniformity larger than 5% was reported in 13% of centres. CONCLUSION: ADC accuracy and spatial uniformity can vary appreciably depending on MR scanner model, sequence implementation (i.e. gradient diffusion direction) and hardware characteristics. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be employed in order to assess the accuracy and spatial uniformity of estimated ADC values, in single- as well as multi-centre studies.
Authors: Nicolas F Michoux; Jakub W Ceranka; Jef Vandemeulebroucke; Frank Peeters; Pierre Lu; Julie Absil; Perrine Triqueneaux; Yan Liu; Laurence Collette; Inneke Willekens; Carola Brussaard; Olivier Debeir; Stephan Hahn; Hubert Raeymaekers; Johan de Mey; Thierry Metens; Frédéric E Lecouvet Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 5.315
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
Authors: Christian Thaler; Anna A Kyselyova; Tobias D Faizy; Marie T Nawka; Sune Jespersen; Brian Hansen; Jan-Patrick Stellmann; Christoph Heesen; Klarissa H Stürner; Maria Stark; Jens Fiehler; Maxim Bester; Susanne Gellißen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Joanna Podgórska; Katarzyna Pasicz; Witold Skrzyński; Bogumił Gołębiewski; Piotr Kuś; Jakub Jasieniak; Anna Kiliszczyk; Agnieszka Rogowska; Thomas Benkert; Jakub Pałucki; Iwona Grabska; Ewa Fabiszewska; Beata Jagielska; Paweł Kukołowicz; Andrzej Cieszanowski Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-01-15 Impact factor: 3.411
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