BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) is a fast-imaging acquisition technique that generates quantitative and co-registered parametric maps. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate the agreement between MRF and phantom reference values, scan-rescan repeatability of MRF in normal cervix, and its ability to distinguish cervical carcinoma (CC) from normal cervical tissues. METHODS: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) phantom was scanned using MRF 15 times over 65 days. Agreement between MRF and phantom reference T1 and T2 values was assessed by linear regression. Healthy volunteers and patients with suspected CC were prospectively recruited. MRF was repeated twice for healthy volunteers (MRF1 and MRF2). Volumes of interest of normal cervical tissues and CC were delineated on T1 and T2 maps. MRF scan-rescan repeatability was evaluated by Bland-Altman plots, within-subject coefficients of variation (wCV), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). T1 and T2 values were compared between CC and normal cervical tissues using Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic efficiency. RESULTS: Strong correlations were observed between MRF and phantom (R2=0.999 for T1, 0.981 for T2). Twelve healthy volunteers (28.7±5.1 years) and 28 patients with CC (54.6±15.2 years) were recruited for the in-vivo experiments. Repeatability of MRF parameters were wCV <3% for T1, <5% for T2 and ICC ≥0.92 for T1, ≥0.94 for T2. T1 value of CC (1,529±112 ms) was higher than normal mucosa [MRF1: 1,430±129 ms, MRF2: 1,440±130 ms; P=0.031, area under the curve (AUC) ≥0.717] and normal stroma (MRF1: 1,258±101 ms, MRF2: 1,276±105 ms; P<0.001, AUC ≥0.946). T2 value of CC (69±9 ms) was lower than normal mucosa (MRF1: 88±16 ms, MRF2: 87±13 ms; P<0.001, AUC ≥0.854), but was not different from normal stroma (P=0.919). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent agreement was observed between MRF and phantom reference values. MRF exhibited excellent scan-rescan repeatability in normal cervix with potential value in differentiating CC from normal cervical tissues. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) is a fast-imaging acquisition technique that generates quantitative and co-registered parametric maps. The aim of this feasibility study was to evaluate the agreement between MRF and phantom reference values, scan-rescan repeatability of MRF in normal cervix, and its ability to distinguish cervical carcinoma (CC) from normal cervical tissues. METHODS: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) phantom was scanned using MRF 15 times over 65 days. Agreement between MRF and phantom reference T1 and T2 values was assessed by linear regression. Healthy volunteers and patients with suspected CC were prospectively recruited. MRF was repeated twice for healthy volunteers (MRF1 and MRF2). Volumes of interest of normal cervical tissues and CC were delineated on T1 and T2 maps. MRF scan-rescan repeatability was evaluated by Bland-Altman plots, within-subject coefficients of variation (wCV), and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). T1 and T2 values were compared between CC and normal cervical tissues using Mann-Whitney U test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate diagnostic efficiency. RESULTS: Strong correlations were observed between MRF and phantom (R2=0.999 for T1, 0.981 for T2). Twelve healthy volunteers (28.7±5.1 years) and 28 patients with CC (54.6±15.2 years) were recruited for the in-vivo experiments. Repeatability of MRF parameters were wCV <3% for T1, <5% for T2 and ICC ≥0.92 for T1, ≥0.94 for T2. T1 value of CC (1,529±112 ms) was higher than normal mucosa [MRF1: 1,430±129 ms, MRF2: 1,440±130 ms; P=0.031, area under the curve (AUC) ≥0.717] and normal stroma (MRF1: 1,258±101 ms, MRF2: 1,276±105 ms; P<0.001, AUC ≥0.946). T2 value of CC (69±9 ms) was lower than normal mucosa (MRF1: 88±16 ms, MRF2: 87±13 ms; P<0.001, AUC ≥0.854), but was not different from normal stroma (P=0.919). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent agreement was observed between MRF and phantom reference values. MRF exhibited excellent scan-rescan repeatability in normal cervix with potential value in differentiating CC from normal cervical tissues. 2021 Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery. All rights reserved.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF); cervical carcinoma (CC); quantitative magnetic resonance imaging (quantitative MRI); repeatability
Authors: Dan Ma; Stephen E Jones; Anagha Deshmane; Ken Sakaie; Eric Y Pierre; Mykol Larvie; Debra McGivney; Ingmar Blümcke; Balu Krishnan; Mark Lowe; Vikas Gulani; Imad Najm; Mark A Griswold; Z Irene Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: James P B O'Connor; Eric O Aboagye; Judith E Adams; Hugo J W L Aerts; Sally F Barrington; Ambros J Beer; Ronald Boellaard; Sarah E Bohndiek; Michael Brady; Gina Brown; David L Buckley; Thomas L Chenevert; Laurence P Clarke; Sandra Collette; Gary J Cook; Nandita M deSouza; John C Dickson; Caroline Dive; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Corinne Faivre-Finn; Ferdia A Gallagher; Fiona J Gilbert; Robert J Gillies; Vicky Goh; John R Griffiths; Ashley M Groves; Steve Halligan; Adrian L Harris; David J Hawkes; Otto S Hoekstra; Erich P Huang; Brian F Hutton; Edward F Jackson; Gordon C Jayson; Andrew Jones; Dow-Mu Koh; Denis Lacombe; Philippe Lambin; Nathalie Lassau; Martin O Leach; Ting-Yim Lee; Edward L Leen; Jason S Lewis; Yan Liu; Mark F Lythgoe; Prakash Manoharan; Ross J Maxwell; Kenneth A Miles; Bruno Morgan; Steve Morris; Tony Ng; Anwar R Padhani; Geoff J M Parker; Mike Partridge; Arvind P Pathak; Andrew C Peet; Shonit Punwani; Andrew R Reynolds; Simon P Robinson; Lalitha K Shankar; Ricky A Sharma; Dmitry Soloviev; Sigrid Stroobants; Daniel C Sullivan; Stuart A Taylor; Paul S Tofts; Gillian M Tozer; Marcel van Herk; Simon Walker-Samuel; James Wason; Kaye J Williams; Paul Workman; Thomas E Yankeelov; Kevin M Brindle; Lisa M McShane; Alan Jackson; John C Waterton Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2016-10-11 Impact factor: 66.675