Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has detected changes in pancreas volume and other characteristics in type 1 and type 2 diabetes. However, differences in MRI technology and approaches across locations currently limit the incorporation of pancreas imaging into multisite trials. The purpose of this study was to develop a standardized MRI protocol for pancreas imaging and to define the reproducibility of these measurements. Calibrated phantoms with known MRI properties were imaged at five sites with differing MRI hardware and software to develop a harmonized MRI imaging protocol. Subsequently, five healthy volunteers underwent MRI at four sites using the harmonized protocol to assess pancreas size, shape, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), longitudinal relaxation time (T1), magnetization transfer ratio (MTR), and pancreas and hepatic fat fraction. Following harmonization, pancreas size, surface area to volume ratio, diffusion, and longitudinal relaxation time were reproducible, with coefficients of variation less than 10%. In contrast, non-standardized image processing led to greater variation in MRI measurements. By using a standardized MRI image acquisition and processing protocol, quantitative MRI of the pancreas performed at multiple locations can be incorporated into clinical trials comparing pancreas imaging measures and metabolic state in individuals with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Context Participants at Stage 1 or 2 type 1 diabetes (T1D) qualify for prevention trials, but factors involved in screening for such trials are largely unknown. Objective To identify factors associated with screening for T1D prevention trials. Methods This study included TrialNet Pathway to Prevention participants who were eligible for a prevention trial: oral insulin (TN-07, TN-20), teplizumab (TN-10), abatacept (TN-18), and oral hydroxychloroquine (TN-22). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were used to examine participant, site, and study factors at the time of prevention trial accrual. Results Screening rates for trials were: 50% for TN-07 (584 screened/1172 eligible), 9% for TN-10 (106/1249), 24% for TN-18 (313/1285), 17% for TN-20 (113/667), and 28% for TN-22 (371/1336). Younger age and male sex were associated with higher screening rates for prevention trials overall and for oral therapies. Participants with an offspring with T1D showed lower rates of screening for all trials and oral drug trials compared to participants with other first-degree relatives as probands. Site factors, including larger monitoring volume and U.S. site versus international site, were associated with higher prevention trial screening rates. Conclusions Clear differences exist between participants who screen for prevention trials and those who do not screen, and between the research sites involved in prevention trial screening. Participant age, sex, and relationship to proband are significantly associated with prevention trial screening in addition to key site factors. Identifying these factors can facilitate strategic recruitment planning to support rapid and successful enrollment into prevention trials.