Nicholas Hobson1, Sean P Polster1, Ying Cao1, Kelly Flemming2, Yunhong Shu3, John Huston3, Chandra Y Gerrard4, Reed Selwyn4, Marc Mabray4, Atif Zafar5, Romuald Girard1, Julián Carrión-Penagos1, Yu Fen Chen6, Todd Parrish6, Xiaohong Joe Zhou7, James I Koenig8, Robert Shenkar1, Agnieszka Stadnik1, Janne Koskimäki1, Alexey Dimov9, Dallas Turley9, Timothy Carroll9, Issam A Awad1. 1. Neurovascular Surgery Program, Section of Neurosurgery, Department of Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 2. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 5. Department of Neurology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 7. Center for MR Research and Department of Radiology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA. 8. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 9. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Chicago Medicine and Biological Sciences, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) on magnetic resonance (MR) have been shown to correlate with neurovascular disease progression as markers of vascular leakage and hemosiderin deposition. Applying these techniques as monitoring biomarkers in clinical trials will be necessary; however, their validation across multiple MR platforms and institutions has not been rigorously verified. PURPOSE: To validate quantitative measurement of MR biomarkers on multiple instruments at different institutions. STUDY TYPE: Phantom validation between platforms and institutions. PHANTOM MODEL: T1 /susceptibility phantom, two-compartment dynamic flow phantom. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR. ASSESSMENT: Philips Ingenia, Siemens Prisma, and Siemens Skyra at three different institutions were assessed. A QSM phantom with concentrations of gadolinium, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ppm was assayed. DCEQP was assessed by measuring a MultiHance bolus as the consistency of the width ratio of the curves at the input and outputs over a range of flow ratios between outputs. STATISTICAL TESTS: Each biomarker was assessed by measures of accuracy (Pearson correlation), precision (paired t-test between repeated measurements), and reproducibility (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] between instruments). RESULTS: QSM accuracy of r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48). DATA CONCLUSION: The phantom performed as expected and determined that MR measures of QSM and DCEQP are accurate and consistent across repeated measurements and between platforms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1192-1199.
BACKGROUND: Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) on magnetic resonance (MR) have been shown to correlate with neurovascular disease progression as markers of vascular leakage and hemosiderin deposition. Applying these techniques as monitoring biomarkers in clinical trials will be necessary; however, their validation across multiple MR platforms and institutions has not been rigorously verified. PURPOSE: To validate quantitative measurement of MR biomarkers on multiple instruments at different institutions. STUDY TYPE: Phantom validation between platforms and institutions. PHANTOM MODEL: T1 /susceptibility phantom, two-compartment dynamic flow phantom. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR. ASSESSMENT: Philips Ingenia, Siemens Prisma, and Siemens Skyra at three different institutions were assessed. A QSM phantom with concentrations of gadolinium, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ppm was assayed. DCEQP was assessed by measuring a MultiHance bolus as the consistency of the width ratio of the curves at the input and outputs over a range of flow ratios between outputs. STATISTICAL TESTS: Each biomarker was assessed by measures of accuracy (Pearson correlation), precision (paired t-test between repeated measurements), and reproducibility (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] between instruments). RESULTS: QSM accuracy of r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48). DATA CONCLUSION: The phantom performed as expected and determined that MR measures of QSM and DCEQP are accurate and consistent across repeated measurements and between platforms. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1192-1199.
Authors: Robert A Knight; Tavarekere N Nagaraja; James R Ewing; Vijaya Nagesh; Polly A Whitton; Eric Bershad; Susan C Fagan; Joseph D Fenstermacher Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Kofi Deh; Thanh D Nguyen; Sarah Eskreis-Winkler; Martin R Prince; Pascal Spincemaille; Susan Gauthier; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Yan Zhang; Yi Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kofi Deh; Keigo Kawaji; Marjolein Bulk; Louise Van Der Weerd; Emelie Lind; Pascal Spincemaille; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Johan Van Auderkerke; Yi Wang; Thanh D Nguyen Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-10-04 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Alexey V Dimov; Tian Liu; Pascal Spincemaille; Jacob S Ecanow; Huan Tan; Robert R Edelman; Yi Wang Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-06-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Julie M Hall; Margaret A Horne; Fiona Moultrie; Colin B Josephson; Jo J Bhattacharya; Carl E Counsell; Gordon D Murray; Vakis Papanastassiou; Vaughn Ritchie; Richard C Roberts; Robin J Sellar; Charles P Warlow Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Anna K Heye; Michael J Thrippleton; Paul A Armitage; Maria Del C Valdés Hernández; Stephen D Makin; Andreas Glatz; Eleni Sakka; Joanna M Wardlaw Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Margaret A Horne; Kelly D Flemming; I-Chang Su; Christian Stapf; Jin Pyeong Jeon; Da Li; Susanne S Maxwell; Philip White; Teresa J Christianson; Ronit Agid; Won-Sang Cho; Chang Wan Oh; Zhen Wu; Jun-Ting Zhang; Jeong Eun Kim; Karel Ter Brugge; Robert Willinsky; Robert D Brown; Gordon D Murray; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Robert Shenkar; Changbin Shi; Douglas A Marchuk; Issam A Awad; Tania Rebeiz; Rebecca A Stockton; David A McDonald; Abdul Ghani Mikati; Lingjiao Zhang; Cecilia Austin; Amy L Akers; Carol J Gallione; Autumn Rorrer; Murat Gunel; Wang Min; Jorge Marcondes De Souza; Connie Lee Journal: Genet Med Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Helen Kim; Kelly D Flemming; Jeffrey A Nelson; Avery Lui; Jennifer J Majersik; Michael Dela Cruz; Joseph Zabramski; Odilette Trevizo; Giuseppe Lanzino; Atif Zafar; Michel Torbey; Marc C Mabray; Myranda Robinson; Jared Narvid; Janine Lupo; Richard E Thompson; Daniel F Hanley; Nichol McBee; Kevin Treine; Noeleen Ostapkovich; Agnieszka Stadnik; Kristina Piedad; Nicholas Hobson; Timothy Carroll; Abdallah Shkoukani; Julián Carrión-Penagos; Carolina Mendoza-Puccini; James I Koenig; Issam Awad Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 7.914