David C Newitt1, Zheng Zhang2,3,4, Jessica E Gibbs1, Savannah C Partridge5, Thomas L Chenevert6, Mark A Rosen7, Patrick J Bolan8, Helga S Marques3,4, Sheye Aliu1, Wen Li1, Lisa Cimino9, Bonnie N Joe1, Heidi Umphrey10, Haydee Ojeda-Fournier11, Basak Dogan12,13, Karen Oh14, Hiroyuki Abe15, Jennifer Drukteinis16,17, Laura J Esserman18, Nola M Hylton1. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 3. Center for Statistical Sciences, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA. 4. American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 7. Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 8. Center for Magnetic Resonance Research, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. 9. American College of Radiology & ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 10. Department of Radiology, University of Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, USA. 11. Department of Radiology, University of California, San Diego, California, USA. 12. Department of Radiology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 13. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA. 14. Department of Radiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA. 15. Department of Radiology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 16. H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute, Tampa, Florida, USA. 17. Department of Women's Imaging, St. Joseph's Women's Hospital, Tampa, Florida, USA. 18. Department of Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI is a promising technique for cancer characterization and treatment monitoring. Knowledge of the reproducibility of DWI metrics in breast tumors is necessary to apply DWI as a clinical biomarker. PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of breast tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a multi-institution clinical trial setting, using standardized DWI protocols and quality assurance (QA) procedures. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: In all, 89 women from nine institutions undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: DWI was acquired before and after patient repositioning using a four b-value, single-shot echo-planar sequence at 1.5T or 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: A QA procedure by trained operators assessed artifacts, fat suppression, and signal-to-noise ratio, and determine study analyzability. Mean tumor ADC was measured via manual segmentation of the multislice tumor region referencing DWI and contrast-enhanced images. Twenty cases were evaluated multiple times to assess intra- and interoperator variability. Segmentation similarity was assessed via the Sørenson-Dice similarity coefficient. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated using within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), agreement index (AI), and repeatability coefficient (RC). Correlations were measured by Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: In all, 71 cases (80%) passed QA evaluation: 44 at 1.5T, 27 at 3.0T; 60 pretreatment, 11 after 3 weeks of taxane-based treatment. ADC repeatability was excellent: wCV = 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0, 5.7%), ICC = 0.97 (95% CI 0.95, 0.98), AI = 0.83 (95% CI 0.76, 0.87), and RC = 0.16 * 10-3 mm2 /sec (95% CI 0.13, 0.19). The results were similar across field strengths and timepoint subgroups. Reproducibility was excellent: interreader ICC = 0.92 (95% CI 0.80, 0.97) and intrareader ICC = 0.91 (95% CI 0.78, 0.96). DATA CONCLUSION: Breast tumor ADC can be measured with excellent repeatability and reproducibility in a multi-institution setting using a standardized protocol and QA procedure. Improvements to DWI image quality could reduce loss of data in clinical trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1617-1628.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) MRI is a promising technique for cancer characterization and treatment monitoring. Knowledge of the reproducibility of DWI metrics in breast tumors is necessary to apply DWI as a clinical biomarker. PURPOSE: To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of breast tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a multi-institution clinical trial setting, using standardized DWI protocols and quality assurance (QA) procedures. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: In all, 89 women from nine institutions undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: DWI was acquired before and after patient repositioning using a four b-value, single-shot echo-planar sequence at 1.5T or 3.0T. ASSESSMENT: A QA procedure by trained operators assessed artifacts, fat suppression, and signal-to-noise ratio, and determine study analyzability. Mean tumor ADC was measured via manual segmentation of the multislice tumor region referencing DWI and contrast-enhanced images. Twenty cases were evaluated multiple times to assess intra- and interoperator variability. Segmentation similarity was assessed via the Sørenson-Dice similarity coefficient. STATISTICAL TESTS: Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated using within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), agreement index (AI), and repeatability coefficient (RC). Correlations were measured by Pearson's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: In all, 71 cases (80%) passed QA evaluation: 44 at 1.5T, 27 at 3.0T; 60 pretreatment, 11 after 3 weeks of taxane-based treatment. ADC repeatability was excellent: wCV = 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0, 5.7%), ICC = 0.97 (95% CI 0.95, 0.98), AI = 0.83 (95% CI 0.76, 0.87), and RC = 0.16 * 10-3 mm2 /sec (95% CI 0.13, 0.19). The results were similar across field strengths and timepoint subgroups. Reproducibility was excellent: interreader ICC = 0.92 (95% CI 0.80, 0.97) and intrareader ICC = 0.91 (95% CI 0.78, 0.96). DATA CONCLUSION:Breast tumor ADC can be measured with excellent repeatability and reproducibility in a multi-institution setting using a standardized protocol and QA procedure. Improvements to DWI image quality could reduce loss of data in clinical trials. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1617-1628.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Revathi S Murthy; Ali Ziadloo; Steven W White; Kimberly H Allison; Constance D Lehman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: G Petralia; L Bonello; P Summers; L Preda; A Malasevschi; S Raimondi; R Di Filippi; M Locatelli; G Curigliano; G Renne; M Bellomi Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2011-01-12 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: T L Chenevert; L D Stegman; J M Taylor; P L Robertson; H S Greenberg; A Rehemtulla; B D Ross Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: D J Manton; A Chaturvedi; A Hubbard; M J Lind; M Lowry; A Maraveyas; M D Pickles; D J Tozer; L W Turnbull Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Wen Li; David C Newitt; Lisa J Wilmes; Ella F Jones; Vignesh Arasu; Jessica Gibbs; Bo La Yun; Elizabeth Li; Savannah C Partridge; John Kornak; Laura J Esserman; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-04-26 Impact factor: 4.813
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: Dariya I Malyarenko; David C Newitt; Ghoncheh Amouzandeh; Lisa J Wilmes; Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Ajit Devaraj; Johannes M Peeters; Shivraman Giri; Axel Vom Endt; Nola M Hylton; Savannah C Partridge; Thomas L Chenevert Journal: Tomography Date: 2020-06
Authors: Ek T Tan; Lisa J Wilmes; Bonnie N Joe; Natsuko Onishi; Vignesh A Arasu; Nola M Hylton; Luca Marinelli; David C Newitt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 4.813