Multi-site repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting of the healthy brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T

Buonincontri, Guido; Biagi, Laura; Retico, Alessandra; Cecchi, Paolo; Cosottini, Mirco; Gallagher, Ferdia A.; Gómez, Pedro A.; Graves, Martin J.; McLean, Mary A.; Riemer, Frank; Schulte, Rolf F.; Tosetti, Michela; Zaccagna, Fulvio; Kaggie, Joshua D.

doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.03.047

Cited by 79 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The average intra‐scanner variability value was about 2% in this study, and on par with a corresponding value of 1% from a material with a similar T1 value reported by a recent study, where the repeatability of MRF with a dedicated 20‐channel head‐neck coil was quantified from repeated scans of the ISMRM/NIST phantom (QalibreMD, Boulder, CO, USA) for 34 consecutive days. The inter‐scanner variability of this study is also similar to what was observed from repeated scans of the ISMRM/NIST phantom at five scanners with dedicated head coils . These preliminary results suggest that the optimized 3D‐MRF is robust not only to receive B1 inhomogeneity within each scan but also to less reproducible placements of flexible body coils across different scans.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

“…The inter-scanner variability of this study is also similar to what was observed from repeated scans of the ISMRM/NIST phantom at five scanners with dedicated head coils. 22 These preliminary results suggest that the optimized 3D-MRF is robust not only to receive B1 inhomogeneity within each scan but also to less reproducible placements of flexible body coils across different scans. In contrast, two 25% PVP solutions on intensity-normalized MPRAGE T1-W had significantly different intensity values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…The accuracy and precision of quantitative MRF T1/T2 maps for neuroradiology have been thoroughly evaluated in several previous studies that implemented repeated measurements of both phantoms with known T1 and T2 values [20][21][22] and healthy volunteers. 20,22 However, there are distinctive differences in hardware and imaging setup between MRI acquisitions in a typical radiation oncology department and a comparably configured MRI scanner in radiology. More specifically, diagnostic MRI scans always use advanced coils with optimized geometries to maximize image quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Initial assessment of 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) towards quantitative brain imaging for radiation therapy

Chen

Shen

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) provides quantitative T1/T2 maps, enabling applications in clinical radiotherapy such as large‐scale, multi‐center clinical trials for longitudinal assessment of therapy response. We evaluated the feasibility of a quantitative three‐dimensional‐MRF (3D‐MRF) towards its radiotherapy applications of primary brain tumors. Methods A fast whole‐brain 3D‐MRF sequence initially developed for diagnostic radiology was optimized using flexible body coils, which is the typical MR imaging setup for radiotherapy treatment planning and for MR imaging (MRI)‐guided treatment delivery. Optimization criteria included the accuracy and the precision of T1/T2 quantifications of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) solutions, compared to those from the 3D‐MRF using a 32‐channel head coil. The accuracy of T1/T2 quantifications from the optimized MRF was first examined in healthy volunteers with two different coil setups. The intra‐ and inter‐scanner variations of image intensity from the optimized sequence were quantified by longitudinal scans of the PVP solutions on two 3T scanners. Using a 3D‐printed MRI geometry phantom, susceptibility‐induced distortion with the optimized 3D‐MRF was quantified as the Dice coefficient of phantom contours, compared to those from CT images. By introducing intentional head motion during 10% of the scan, the robustness of the optimized 3D‐MRF towards motion was evaluated through visual inspection of motion artifacts and through quantitative analysis of image sharpness in brain MRF maps. Results The optimized sequence acquired whole‐brain T1, T2 and proton density maps and with a resolution of 1.2 × 1.2 × 3 mm3 in 10 min, similar to the total acquisition time of 3D T1‐ and T2‐weighted images of the same resolution. In vivo T1 and T2 values of the white and gray matter were consistent with literature. The intra‐ and inter‐scanner variability of the intensity‐normalized MRF T1 was 1.0% ± 0.7% and 2.3% ± 1.0% respectively, in contrast to 5.3% ± 3.8% and 3.2% ± 1.6% from the normalized T1‐weighted MRI. Repeatability and reproducibility of MRF T1 were independent of intensity normalization. Both phantom and human data demonstrated that the optimized 3D‐MRF is more robust to subject motion and artifacts from subject‐specific susceptibility difference. Compared to CT contours, the Dice coefficient of phantom contours from 3D‐MRF was 0.93, improved from 0.87 from the T1‐weighted MRI. Conclusion Compared to conventional MRI, the optimized 3D‐MRF demonstrated improved repeatability across time points and reproducibility across scanners for better tissue quantification, as well as improved robustness to subject‐specific susceptibility and motion artifacts under a typical MR imaging setup for radiotherapy. More importantly, quantitative MRF T1/T2 measurements lead to promising potentials towards longitudinal quantitative assessment of treatment response for better adaptive therapy and for large‐scale, multi‐center clinical trials.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 79%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Initial assessment of 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) towards quantitative brain imaging for radiation therapy

Chen

Shen

et al. 2019

Medical Physics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cross‐protocol variability was examined by first obtaining a superset of FA measures, then using subsets of these to generate different estimation protocols (Table ), which should obtain the same result with varying precision . This is different from typical reproducibility studies, which rely on using a single, optimized set of measurements across different sites, not exploring whether the methods are robust to different sequence parameters. The reader should not associate the reported intravendor variability as a feature of manufacturer reproducibility capability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Controlled saturation magnetization transfer for reproducible multivendor variable flip angle T₁ and T₂ mapping

Teixeira

Neji

Wood

et al. 2019

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The widespread clinical application of quantitative MRI has been hindered by a lack of reproducibility across sites and vendors. Previous work has attributed this to incorrect B1 mapping or insufficient spoiling conditions. We recently proposed the controlled saturation magnetization transfer (CSMT) framework and hypothesized that the lack of reproducibility can also be attributed to magnetization transfer effects. This work seeks to validate this hypothesis and demonstrate that reproducible multivendor single‐pool relaxometry can be achieved with the CSMT approach. Methods Three healthy volunteers were scanned on scanners from 3 vendors (GE Healthcare, Philips, Siemens). An extensive set of images necessary for joint T1 and T2 estimation were acquired with (1) each vendor default RF pulses and spoiling conditions; (2) harmonized RF spoiling; and (3) harmonized RF spoiling and CSMT pulses. Different subsets of images were used to generate 6 different T1 and T2 maps for each subject’s data from each vendor. Cross‐protocol, cross‐vendor, and test/retest variability were estimated. Results Harmonized RF spoiling conditions are insufficient to ensure good cross‐vendor reproducibility. Controlled saturation magnetization transfer allows cross‐protocol variability to be reduced from 18.3% to 4.0%. Whole‐brain variability using the same protocol was reduced from a maximum of 19% to 4.5% across sites. Both CSMT and native vendor RF conditions have a reported variability of less than 5% for repeat measures on the same vendor. Conclusion Magnetization transfer effects are a major contributor to intersite/intrasite variability of T1 and T2 estimation. Controlled saturation magnetization transfer stabilizes these effects, paving the way for the use of single‐pool T1 and T2 as a reliable source for clinical diagnosis across sites.

show abstract

“…9 MRF can also be used to evaluate the changes of T 1 and T 2 in brain parenchyma. [10][11][12][13] There is an advantage in that the dynamic range is larger using MRF than for 3D-real IR imaging alone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intracranial Distribution of Intravenously Administered Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent over a Period of 24 Hours: Evaluation with 3D-real IR Imaging and MR Fingerprinting

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To evaluate the feasibility for the detection of slight contrast effects after intravenous administration of single dose gadolinium-based contrast agent (IV-SD-GBCA), the time course of the GBCA distribution up to 24 h was examined in various fluid spaces and brain parenchyma using 3D-real IR imaging and MR fingerprinting (MRF). Methods:Twenty-four patients with a suspicion of endolymphatic hydrops were scanned at pre-administration and at 10 min, 4 and 24 h post-IV-SD-GBCA. 3D-real IR images and MRF at the level of the internal auditory canal were obtained. The signal intensity on the 3D-real IR image of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) in the cerebellopontine angle cistern (CPA), Sylvian fissure (Syl), lateral ventricle (LV), and cochlear perilymph (CPL) was measured. The T 1 and T 2 values of cerebellar gray (GM) and white matter (WM) were measured using MRF. Each averaged value at the various time points was compared using an analysis of variance.

show abstract

Multi-site repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting of the healthy brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T

Cited by 79 publications

References 58 publications

Initial assessment of 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) towards quantitative brain imaging for radiation therapy

Initial assessment of 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) towards quantitative brain imaging for radiation therapy

Controlled saturation magnetization transfer for reproducible multivendor variable flip angle T₁ and T₂ mapping

Intracranial Distribution of Intravenously Administered Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent over a Period of 24 Hours: Evaluation with 3D-real IR Imaging and MR Fingerprinting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Multi-site repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting of the healthy brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T

Cited by 79 publications

References 58 publications

Initial assessment of 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) towards quantitative brain imaging for radiation therapy

Initial assessment of 3D magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) towards quantitative brain imaging for radiation therapy

Controlled saturation magnetization transfer for reproducible multivendor variable flip angle T1 and T2 mapping

Intracranial Distribution of Intravenously Administered Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent over a Period of 24 Hours: Evaluation with 3D-real IR Imaging and MR Fingerprinting

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Multi-site repeatability and reproducibility of MR fingerprinting of the healthy brain at 1.5 and 3.0 T

Controlled saturation magnetization transfer for reproducible multivendor variable flip angle T₁ and T₂ mapping