Nicolas F Michoux1, Jakub W Ceranka2, Jef Vandemeulebroucke2, Frank Peeters3, Pierre Lu3, Julie Absil4, Perrine Triqueneaux3, Yan Liu5, Laurence Collette5, Inneke Willekens6, Carola Brussaard6, Olivier Debeir7, Stephan Hahn7, Hubert Raeymaekers6, Johan de Mey6, Thierry Metens4, Frédéric E Lecouvet3. 1. Institut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium. nicolas.michoux@uclouvain.be. 2. Department of Electronics and Informatics (ETRO), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium. 3. Institut de Recherche Expérimentale & Clinique (IREC) - Radiology Department, Université Catholique de Louvain (UCLouvain) - Cliniques Universitaires Saint Luc, Avenue Hippocrate 10, B-1200, Brussels, Belgium. 4. Radiology Department, Université libre de Bruxelles, Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium. 5. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Brussels, Belgium. 6. MRI Department, UZ Brussel, Jette, Belgium. 7. LISA (Laboratories of Image Synthesis and Analysis), Ecole Polytechnique de Bruxelles, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Multicenter oncology trials increasingly include MRI examinations with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for lesion characterization and follow-up. However, the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) limits above which a true change in ADC can be considered relevant are poorly defined. This study assessed these limits in a standardized whole-body (WB)-MRI protocol. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed at three centers equipped with the same 3.0-T scanners to test a WB-MRI protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Eight healthy volunteers per center were enrolled to undergo test and retest examinations in the same center and a third examination in another center. ADC variability was assessed in multiple organs by two readers using two-way mixed ANOVA, Bland-Altman plots, coefficient of variation (CoV), and the upper limit of the 95% CI on repeatability (RC) and reproducibility (RDC) coefficients. RESULTS: CoV of ADC was not influenced by other factors (center, reader) than the organ. Based on the upper limit of the 95% CI on RC and RDC (from both readers), a change in ADC in an individual patient must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central and peripheral zones of the prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes R&R limits above which ADC changes can be considered as a reliable quantitative endpoint to assess disease or treatment-related changes in the tissue microstructure in the setting of multicenter WB-MRI trials. KEY POINTS: • The present study showed the range of R&R of ADC in WB-MRI that may be achieved in a multicenter framework when a standardized protocol is deployed. • R&R was not influenced by the site of acquisition of DW images. • Clinically significant changes in ADC measured in a multicenter WB-MRI protocol performed with the same type of MRI scanner must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central zone and peripheral zone of prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be detected with a 95% confidence level.
OBJECTIVES: Multicenter oncology trials increasingly include MRI examinations with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for lesion characterization and follow-up. However, the repeatability and reproducibility (R&R) limits above which a true change in ADC can be considered relevant are poorly defined. This study assessed these limits in a standardized whole-body (WB)-MRI protocol. METHODS: A prospective, multicenter study was performed at three centers equipped with the same 3.0-T scanners to test a WB-MRI protocol including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Eight healthy volunteers per center were enrolled to undergo test and retest examinations in the same center and a third examination in another center. ADC variability was assessed in multiple organs by two readers using two-way mixed ANOVA, Bland-Altman plots, coefficient of variation (CoV), and the upper limit of the 95% CI on repeatability (RC) and reproducibility (RDC) coefficients. RESULTS:CoV of ADC was not influenced by other factors (center, reader) than the organ. Based on the upper limit of the 95% CI on RC and RDC (from both readers), a change in ADC in an individual patient must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central and peripheral zones of the prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study proposes R&R limits above which ADC changes can be considered as a reliable quantitative endpoint to assess disease or treatment-related changes in the tissue microstructure in the setting of multicenter WB-MRI trials. KEY POINTS: • The present study showed the range of R&R of ADC in WB-MRI that may be achieved in a multicenter framework when a standardized protocol is deployed. • R&R was not influenced by the site of acquisition of DW images. • Clinically significant changes in ADC measured in a multicenter WB-MRI protocol performed with the same type of MRI scanner must be superior to 12% (cerebrum white matter), 16% (paraspinal muscle), 22% (renal cortex), 26% (central zone and peripheral zone of prostate), 29% (renal medulla), 35% (liver), 45% (spleen), 50% (posterior iliac crest), 66% (L5 vertebra), 68% (femur), and 94% (acetabulum) to be detected with a 95% confidence level.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Disease progression; Reproducibility of results; Whole-body imaging
Authors: Frederic E Lecouvet; Sandy Van Nieuwenhove; François Jamar; Renaud Lhommel; Ali Guermazi; Vassiliki P Pasoglou Journal: PET Clin Date: 2018-08-17
Authors: Joan C Vilanova; Roberto García-Figueiras; Antonio Luna; Sandra Baleato-González; Xavier Tomás; José A Narváez Journal: Semin Musculoskelet Radiol Date: 2019-06-04 Impact factor: 1.777
Authors: Sileny N Han; Frédéric Amant; Katrijn Michielsen; Frederik De Keyzer; Steffen Fieuws; Kristel Van Calsteren; Raphaëla C Dresen; Mina Mhallem Gziri; Vincent Vandecaveye Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-12-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Arash Latifoltojar; Shonit Punwani; Andre Lopes; Paul D Humphries; Maria Klusmann; Leon Jonathan Menezes; Stephen Daw; Ananth Shankar; Deena Neriman; Heather Fitzke; Laura Clifton-Hadley; Paul Smith; Stuart A Taylor Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-06-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ho Young Park; Kyung Won Kim; Min A Yoon; Min Hee Lee; Eun Jin Chae; Jeong Hyun Lee; Hye Won Chung; Dok Hyun Yoon Journal: Cancer Imaging Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.909
Authors: Jessica M Winfield; Gabriele Poillucci; Matthew D Blackledge; David J Collins; Vallari Shah; Nina Tunariu; Martin F Kaiser; Christina Messiou Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-11-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Amani Arthur; Edward W Johnston; Jessica M Winfield; Matthew D Blackledge; Robin L Jones; Paul H Huang; Christina Messiou Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-01 Impact factor: 5.738
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