Kathryn E Keenan1, Zydrunas Gimbutas2, Andrew Dienstfrey2, Karl F Stupic1. 1. Physical Measurement Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 2. Information Technology Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Scanner upgrades due to software and hardware changes are an inevitable part of MR research and, without quality assurance protocols, can jeopardize studies. PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in T1 relaxation time by inversion recovery (IR) and variable flip angle (VFA) measurements on a 3T system that underwent an "everything but the magnet" upgrade. STUDY TYPE: Longitudinal. PHANTOM: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine / National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) system phantom with repeated measurements across multiple (n = 3) days. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T1 IR, VFA at 3T. ASSESSMENT: The T1 measurements by IR and VFA were compared with the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements, which constitute the known values for the ISMRM/NIST system phantom, to determine the measurement error. STATISTICAL TESTS: Descriptive. RESULTS: The T1 VFA measurement errors were distributed around zero (-15% to +10%) on the original system and then the errors were distributed entirely above zero post-upgrade (+5% to 30%). The T1 IR results had a dramatic increase in error distribution (±5% original, ±20% post-upgrade) prior to the identification of signal saturation as an issue. Once the signal saturation was accounted for, the T1 IR errors decreased to ±10% post-upgrade. DATA CONCLUSION: The T1 VFA measurement differences between the original and post-upgrade systems can be entirely attributed to contributions from B1 . The T1 IR measurements demonstrate the need for quantitative quality assurance (QA) processes. The site under study passed the QA protocols in place, which did not identify the increased T1 error, nor the signal saturation issue. To improve on this study, we would make systematic, quantitative measurements at intervals less than a year and following any hardware or software upgrade. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1948-1954. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
BACKGROUND: Scanner upgrades due to software and hardware changes are an inevitable part of MR research and, without quality assurance protocols, can jeopardize studies. PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in T1 relaxation time by inversion recovery (IR) and variable flip angle (VFA) measurements on a 3T system that underwent an "everything but the magnet" upgrade. STUDY TYPE: Longitudinal. PHANTOM: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine / National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) system phantom with repeated measurements across multiple (n = 3) days. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: T1 IR, VFA at 3T. ASSESSMENT: The T1 measurements by IR and VFA were compared with the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) measurements, which constitute the known values for the ISMRM/NIST system phantom, to determine the measurement error. STATISTICAL TESTS: Descriptive. RESULTS: The T1 VFA measurement errors were distributed around zero (-15% to +10%) on the original system and then the errors were distributed entirely above zero post-upgrade (+5% to 30%). The T1 IR results had a dramatic increase in error distribution (±5% original, ±20% post-upgrade) prior to the identification of signal saturation as an issue. Once the signal saturation was accounted for, the T1 IR errors decreased to ±10% post-upgrade. DATA CONCLUSION: The T1 VFA measurement differences between the original and post-upgrade systems can be entirely attributed to contributions from B1 . The T1 IR measurements demonstrate the need for quantitative quality assurance (QA) processes. The site under study passed the QA protocols in place, which did not identify the increased T1 error, nor the signal saturation issue. To improve on this study, we would make systematic, quantitative measurements at intervals less than a year and following any hardware or software upgrade. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1948-1954. Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
Authors: Benjamin Lewis; Anamaria Guta; Stacie Mackey; H Michael Gach; Sasa Mutic; Olga Green; Taeho Kim Journal: J Appl Clin Med Phys Date: 2021-01-15 Impact factor: 2.102
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: Fidel Alfaro-Almagro; Paul McCarthy; Soroosh Afyouni; Jesper L R Andersson; Matteo Bastiani; Karla L Miller; Thomas E Nichols; Stephen M Smith Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2020-06-02 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Zydrunas Gimbutas; Andrew Dienstfrey; Karl F Stupic; Michael A Boss; Stephen E Russek; Thomas L Chenevert; P V Prasad; Junyu Guo; Wilburn E Reddick; Kim M Cecil; Amita Shukla-Dave; David Aramburu Nunez; Amaresh Shridhar Konar; Michael Z Liu; Sachin R Jambawalikar; Lawrence H Schwartz; Jie Zheng; Peng Hu; Edward F Jackson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-06-30 Impact factor: 3.240
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