TY - JOUR
T1 - Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI
T2 - Results from a multicenter phantom study
AU - Bane, Octavia
AU - Hectors, Stefanie J.
AU - Wagner, Mathilde
AU - Arlinghaus, Lori L.
AU - Aryal, Madhava P.
AU - Cao, Yue
AU - Chenevert, Thomas L.
AU - Fennessy, Fiona
AU - Huang, Wei
AU - Hylton, Nola M.
AU - Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree
AU - Keenan, Kathryn E.
AU - Malyarenko, Dariya I.
AU - Mulkern, Robert V.
AU - Newitt, David C.
AU - Russek, Stephen E.
AU - Stupic, Karl F.
AU - Tudorica, Alina
AU - Wilmes, Lisa J.
AU - Yankeelov, Thomas E.
AU - Yen, Yi Fei
AU - Boss, Michael A.
AU - Taouli, Bachir
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
PY - 2018/5
Y1 - 2018/5
N2 - Purpose: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods: A T1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T1 sample (P < 10−6), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10−6). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). Conclusions: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018.
AB - Purpose: To determine the in vitro accuracy, test-retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods: A T1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion-recovery spin-echo (IR-SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site-specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look-Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results: For the common IR-SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T1 sample (P < 10−6), whereas test-retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10−6). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR-SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR-SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR-SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site-specific protocols, Look-Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). Conclusions: The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip-angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018.
KW - DCE-MRI
KW - T mapping
KW - multicenter
KW - phantom
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029499148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029499148&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/mrm.26903
DO - 10.1002/mrm.26903
M3 - Article
C2 - 28913930
AN - SCOPUS:85029499148
SN - 0740-3194
VL - 79
SP - 2564
EP - 2575
JO - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
JF - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine
IS - 5
ER -