Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study

Octavia Bane, Stefanie J. Hectors, Mathilde Wagner, Lori L. Arlinghaus, Madhava P. Aryal, Yue Cao, Thomas L. Chenevert, Fiona Fennessy, Wei Huang, Nola M. Hylton, Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer, Kathryn E. Keenan, Dariya I. Malyarenko, Robert V. Mulkern, David C. Newitt, Stephen E. Russek, Karl F. Stupic, Alina Tudorica, Lisa J. Wilmes, Thomas E. Yankeelov & 3 others Yi Fei Yen, Michael A. Boss, Bachir Taouli

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Abstract

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 3T. 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 3T than 1.5T (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; 3T: 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.

LanguageEnglish (US)
JournalMagnetic Resonance in Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Multicenter Studies
Protons
Linear Models
In Vitro Techniques

Keywords

  • DCE-MRI
  • Multicenter
  • Phantom
  • T mapping

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI : Results from a multicenter phantom study. / Bane, Octavia; Hectors, Stefanie J.; Wagner, Mathilde; Arlinghaus, Lori L.; Aryal, Madhava P.; Cao, Yue; Chenevert, Thomas L.; Fennessy, Fiona; Huang, Wei; Hylton, Nola M.; Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree; Keenan, Kathryn E.; Malyarenko, Dariya I.; Mulkern, Robert V.; Newitt, David C.; Russek, Stephen E.; Stupic, Karl F.; Tudorica, Alina; Wilmes, Lisa J.; Yankeelov, Thomas E.; Yen, Yi Fei; Boss, Michael A.; Taouli, Bachir.

In: Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2017.

Research output: Research - peer-reviewArticle

Bane, O, Hectors, SJ, Wagner, M, Arlinghaus, LL, Aryal, MP, Cao, Y, Chenevert, TL, Fennessy, F, Huang, W, Hylton, NM, Kalpathy-Cramer, J, Keenan, KE, Malyarenko, DI, Mulkern, RV, Newitt, DC, Russek, SE, Stupic, KF, Tudorica, A, Wilmes, LJ, Yankeelov, TE, Yen, YF, Boss, MA & Taouli, B 2017, 'Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study' Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. DOI: 10.1002/mrm.26903
Bane, Octavia ; Hectors, Stefanie J. ; Wagner, Mathilde ; Arlinghaus, Lori L. ; Aryal, Madhava P. ; Cao, Yue ; Chenevert, Thomas L. ; Fennessy, Fiona ; Huang, Wei ; Hylton, Nola M. ; Kalpathy-Cramer, Jayashree ; Keenan, Kathryn E. ; Malyarenko, Dariya I. ; Mulkern, Robert V. ; Newitt, David C. ; Russek, Stephen E. ; Stupic, Karl F. ; Tudorica, Alina ; Wilmes, Lisa J. ; Yankeelov, Thomas E. ; Yen, Yi Fei ; Boss, Michael A. ; Taouli, Bachir. / Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI : Results from a multicenter phantom study. In: Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2017
@article{355708092a004bd6b7293ec0b17342fe,
title = "Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study",
abstract = "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 3T. 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 3T than 1.5T (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; 3T: 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.",
keywords = "DCE-MRI, Multicenter, Phantom, T mapping",
author = "Octavia Bane and Hectors, {Stefanie J.} and Mathilde Wagner and Arlinghaus, {Lori L.} and Aryal, {Madhava P.} and Yue Cao and Chenevert, {Thomas L.} and Fiona Fennessy and Wei Huang and Hylton, {Nola M.} and Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer and Keenan, {Kathryn E.} and Malyarenko, {Dariya I.} and Mulkern, {Robert V.} and Newitt, {David C.} and Russek, {Stephen E.} and Stupic, {Karl F.} and Alina Tudorica and Wilmes, {Lisa J.} and Yankeelov, {Thomas E.} and Yen, {Yi Fei} and Boss, {Michael A.} and Bachir Taouli",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1002/mrm.26903",
journal = "Magnetic Resonance in Medicine",
issn = "0740-3194",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCE-MRI

T2 - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

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

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

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 3T. 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 3T than 1.5T (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; 3T: 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.

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 3T. 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 3T than 1.5T (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; 3T: 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.

KW - DCE-MRI

KW - Multicenter

KW - Phantom

KW - T mapping

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

JO - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

JF - Magnetic Resonance in Medicine

SN - 0740-3194

ER -