Errors in Quantitative Image Analysis due to Platform-Dependent Image Scaling

Chenevert, Thomas L.; Malyarenko, Dariya I.; Newitt, David C.; Li, Xin; Jayatilake, Mohan L.; Tudorica, Alina; Fedorov, Andriy; Kikinis, Ron; Liu, Tiffany Ting; Muzi, Mark; Oborski, Matthew J.; Laymon, Charles M.; Li, Xia; Yankeelov, Thomas E.; Kalpathy–Cramer, Jayashree; Mountz, James M.; Kinahan, Paul E.; Rubin, Daniel L.; Fennessy, Fiona M.; Huang, Wei; Hylton, Nola M.; Ross, Brian D.

doi:10.1593/tlo.13811

Cited by 53 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The slope of the line that describes this relationship in each voxel represents the ADC. Despite using different scanner-specific techniques and image scaling methods to compute ADC maps, it was demonstrated that ADC measurements provided by different vendors were within 3% of the true value [18] using the diffusion coefficient of water at 0 ℃ as a reference.…”

Section: Sb/s0mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients,in-vitroandin-vivoreproducibility

Jafar

Parsaï

Miquel

2016

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable disparity in the published apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values across different anatomies. Institutions are increasingly assessing repeatability and reproducibility of the derived ADC to determine its variation, which could potentially be used as an indicator in determining tumour aggressiveness or assessing tumour response. In this manuscript, a review of selected articles published to date in healthy extracranial body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is presented, detailing reported ADC values and discussing their variation across different studies. In total 115 studies were selected including 28 for liver parenchyma, 15 for kidney (renal parenchyma), 14 for spleen, 13 for pancreatic body, 6 for gallbladder, 13 for prostate, 13 for uterus (endometrium, myometrium, cervix) In addition, six phantom studies and thirteen in vivo studies were summarized to compare repeatability and reproducibility of the measured ADC. All selected phantom studies demonstrated lower intra-scanner and inter-scanner variation compared to in vivo studies. Based on the findings of this manuscript, it is recommended that protocols need to be optimised for the body part studied and that system-induced variability must be established using a standardized phantom in any clinical study. Reproducibility of the measured ADC must also be assessed in a volunteer population, as variations are far more significant in vivo compared with phantom studies. Core tip: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was highlighted as a potential cancer imaging biomarker by a team of experts in a report published in 2009. We review the variability of published diffusion values in the major extra-cranial organs and focus on the validation literature, both in vivo and in vitro . A total of 115 studies were selected including for liver parenchyma, kidney, pancreatic body, spleen, gallbladder, prostate, uterus (endometrium, myometrium, cervix) and breast. We also look in detail at the published repeatability and reproducibility studies, both in vivo and in phantoms. A series of recommendations based on our findings are given at the end of this review.Jafar MM, Parsai A, Miquel ME. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients, in vitro and in vivo reproducibility.

show abstract

Section: Sb/s0mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients,in-vitroandin-vivoreproducibility

Jafar

Parsaï

Miquel

2016

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the use of standardized imaging protocol and parameters, variability related to different MR imaging gradient systems and calibrations, software packages, and image scaling remains a major source of errors in quantitative image analysis such as ours. 19 We also showed that ADC 10 was predictive of LGG progression, whereas ADC mean was not. In contrast to mean values that can be diluted by tissue and microenviromental heterogeneity, the lowest 10th percentile value was chosen to represent regions of tumor with the highest cellular density and proliferation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Sequential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Assessment of Tumor Progression in Patients with Low-Grade Glioma

Chen¹,

Swinburne²,

Tsankova³

et al. 2018

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Quantification of contrast enhancement can be obtained using the relative contrast enhancement (RCE) feature, which is incorporated in the Magnetic Resonance Index of Activity (MaRIA) [6]. However, manual region of interest placement and corrections of signal intensity values on certain scanner types complicate the use of these measurements [30].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI in assessment of the terminal ileum in Crohn’s disease patients

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to compare the performance of contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DW)-MRI in grading Crohn's disease activity of the terminal ileum. Methods: Three readers evaluated CE-MRI, DW-MRI, and their combinations (CE/DW-MRI and DW/CE-MRI, depending on which protocol was used at the start of evaluation). Disease severity grading scores were correlated to the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity (CDEIS). Diagnostic accuracy, severity grading, and levels of confidence were compared between imaging protocols and interobserver agreement was calculated. Results: Sixty-one patients were included (30 female, median age 36). Diagnostic accuracy for active disease for CE-MRI, DW-MRI, CE/DW-MRI, and DW/CE-MRI ranged between 0.82 and 0.85, 0.75 and 0.83, 0.79 and 0.84, and 0.74 and 0.82, respectively. Severity grading correlation to CDEIS ranged between 0.70 and 0.74, 0.66 and 0.70, 0.69 and 0.75, and 0.67 and 0.74, respectively. For each reader, CE-MRI values were consistently higher than DW-MRI, albeit not significantly. Confidence levels for all readers were significantly higher for CE-MRI compared to DW-MRI (P < 0.001). Further increased confidence was seen when using combined imaging protocols. Conclusions: There was no significant difference of CE-MRI and DW-MRI in determining disease activity, but the higher confidence levels may favor CE-MRI. DW-MRI is a good alternative in cases with relative contraindications for the use of intravenous contrast medium.

show abstract

Errors in Quantitative Image Analysis due to Platform-Dependent Image Scaling

Abstract: Corrective actions for image scaling are suggested for manufacturers and quantitative imaging community.

Cited by 53 publications

References 17 publications

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients,in-vitroandin-vivoreproducibility

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients,in-vitroandin-vivoreproducibility

Sequential Apparent Diffusion Coefficient for Assessment of Tumor Progression in Patients with Low-Grade Glioma

Comparison of contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MRI in assessment of the terminal ileum in Crohn’s disease patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About