Premium
Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification methods used for DCE‐MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study
Author(s) -
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.,
KalpathyCramer 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 YiFei,
Boss Michael A.,
Taouli Bachir
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
magnetic resonance in medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.696
H-Index - 225
eISSN - 1522-2594
pISSN - 0740-3194
DOI - 10.1002/mrm.26903
Subject(s) - repeatability , reproducibility , flip angle , imaging phantom , coefficient of variation , nuclear medicine , scanner , standard deviation , accuracy and precision , biomedical engineering , nuclear magnetic resonance , mathematics , magnetic resonance imaging , materials science , medicine , statistics , physics , radiology , optics
Purpose To determine the in vitro accuracy, test‐retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T 1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods A T 1 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 T 1 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 T 1 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 T 1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip‐angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B 1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T 1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.