Multi‐system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice‐water phantom
dc.contributor.author | Malyarenko, Dariya | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Galbán, Craig J. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Londy, Frank J. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Meyer, Charles R. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Johnson, Timothy D. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Rehemtulla, Alnawaz | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Ross, Brian D. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Chenevert, Thomas L. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2013-05-02T19:34:54Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-07-01T15:53:27Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2013-05 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Malyarenko, Dariya; Galbán, Craig J. ; Londy, Frank J.; Meyer, Charles R.; Johnson, Timothy D.; Rehemtulla, Alnawaz; Ross, Brian D.; Chenevert, Thomas L. (2013). "Multiâ system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an iceâ water phantom." Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 37(5): 1238-1246. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/97442> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1053-1807 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1522-2586 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/97442 | |
dc.description.abstract | Purpose: To determine quantitative quality control procedures to evaluate technical variability in multi‐center measurements of the diffusion coefficient of water as a prerequisite to use of the biomarker apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in multi‐center clinical trials. Materials and Methods: A uniform data acquisition protocol was developed and shared with 18 participating test sites along with a temperature‐controlled diffusion phantom delivered to each site. Usable diffusion weighted imaging data of ice water at five b‐values were collected on 35 clinical MRI systems from three vendors at two field strengths (1.5 and 3 Tesla [T]) and analyzed at a central processing site. Results: Standard deviation of bore‐center ADCs measured across 35 scanners was <2%; error range: −2% to +5% from literature value. Day‐to‐day repeatability of the measurements was within 4.5%. Intra‐exam repeatability at the phantom center was within 1%. Excluding one outlier, inter‐site reproducibility of ADC at magnet isocenter was within 3%, although variability increased for off‐center measurements. Significant (>10%) vendor‐specific and system‐specific spatial nonuniformity ADC bias was detected for the off‐center measurement that was consistent with gradient nonlinearity. Conclusion: Standardization of DWI protocol has improved reproducibility of ADC measurements and allowed identifying spatial ADC nonuniformity as a source of error in multi‐site clinical studies. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2013;37:1238–1246. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company | en_US |
dc.subject.other | MRI | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Diffusion | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Phantom | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Ice‐Water | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Quality Control | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Gradient Nonlinearity | en_US |
dc.title | Multi‐system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice‐water phantom | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Medicine (General) | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | University of Michigan Hospitals, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, UHB2 Room A209, Ann Arbor, MI 48109‐5030 | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Radiology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Department of Biostatistics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | Departments of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 23023785 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97442/1/23825_ftp.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/jmri.23825 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Collins DJ, Blackledge M. Techniques and optimization. In: Koh DM, Thoeny HC, editors. Diffusion‐weighted MR imaging: applications in the body. New York: Springer‐Verlag; 2010. p 19 – 32. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Saritas EU, Lee JH, Nishimura DG. SNR dependence of optimal parameters for apparent diffusion coefficient measurements. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 2011; 30: 424 – 437. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ogura A, Hayakawa K, Miyuati T, Maeda F. Imaging parameter effects in apparent diffusion coefficient determination of magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 2011; 77: 185 – 188. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Zhu T, Hu R, Qiu X, Taylor M, et al. Quantification of accuracy and precision of multi‐center DTI measurements: a diffusion phantom and human brain study. Neuroimage 2011; 56: 1398 – 1411. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Delakis I, Moore EM, Leach MO, De Wilde JP. Developing a quality control protocol for diffusion imaging on a clinical MRI system. Phys Med Biol 2004; 49: 1409 – 1422. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chenevert TL, Craig JG, Ivancevic MK, et al. Diffusion coefficient measurement using temperature controlled fluid for quality control in multi‐center studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 34: 983 – 987. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tofts PS, Lloyd D, Clark CA, et al. Test liquids for quantitative MRI measurements of self‐diffusion coefficient in vivo. Magn Reson Med 2000; 43: 368 – 374. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Krynicki K, Green CD, Sawyer DW. Pressure and temperature dependence of self‐diffusion in water. Faraday Discuss Chem Soc 1978; 66: 199 – 208. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Matsuya R, Kuroda M, Matsumoto Y, et al. A new phantom using polyethylene glycol as an apparent diffusion coefficient standard for MR imaging. Int J Oncol 2009; 35: 893 – 900. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Spees WM, Song S‐K, Garbow JR, Neil JJ, Ackerman JH. Use of ethylene glycol to evaluate gradient performance in gradient‐intensive diffusion MR sequences. Magn Reson Med 2012; 68: 319 – 324. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hamstra DA, Lee KC, Moffat BA, Chenevert TL, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging: an imaging treatment response biomarker to chemoradiotherapy in a mouse model of squamous cell cancer of the head and neck. Transl Oncol 2008; 1: 187 – 194. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Galban CJ, Mukherji SK, Chenevert TL, et al. A feasibility study of parametric response map analysis of diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging scans of head and neck cancer patients for providing early detection of therapeutic efficacy. Transl Oncol 2009; 2: 184 – 190. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chenevert TL, Ross BD. Diffusion imaging for therapy response assessment of brain tumor. Neuroimaging Clin N Am 2009; 19: 559 – 571. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, et al. Diffusion‐weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 2009; 11: 102 – 125. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Mulkern RV, Gudbjartsson H, Westin CF, et al. Multi‐component apparent diffusion coefficients in human brain. NMR Biomed 1999; 12: 51 – 62. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Riches SF, Hawtin K, Charles‐Edwards EM, de Souza NM. Diffusion‐weighted imaging of the prostate and rectal wall: comparison of biexponential and monoexponential modelled diffusion and associated perfusion coefficients. NMR Biomed 2009; 22: 318 – 325. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Colagrande S, Pasquinelli F, Mazzoni LN, et al. MR‐diffusion weighted imaging of healthy liver parenchyma: repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 912 – 920. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Tiepel SJ, Reuter S, Stieltjes B, et al. Multicenter stability of diffusion tensor imaging measures: a European clinical and physical phantom study. Psychiatry Res 2011; 194: 363 – 371. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, et al. Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi‐institutional comparison study. Radiology 2008; 249: 624 – 630. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bammer R, Markl M, Barnett, A, et al. Analysis and generalized correction of the effect of spatial gradient field distortions in diffusion weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 2003; 50: 560 – 569. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Meier C, Zwanger M, Feiweier T, Porter D. Concomitant field terms for asymmetric gradient coils: consequences for diffusion, flow, and echo‐planar imaging. Magn Reson Med 2008; 60: 128 – 134. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Holz M, Heil SR, Sacco A. Temperature‐dependent self‐diffusion coefficients of water and six selected molecular liquids for calibration in accurate 1H NMR PFG measurements. Phys Chem Chem Phys 2000; 2: 4740 – 4742. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Simpson JH, Carr HY. Diffusion and nuclear spin relaxation in water. Phys Rev 1958; 111: 1201 – 1202. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.