Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites.
MRI
cavernoma
cavernous angioma
cavernous malformation
clinical trial
dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP)
phantom validation
quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 2020
04 2020
Historique:
received:
26
06
2019
accepted:
27
08
2019
pubmed:
14
9
2019
medline:
13
5
2021
entrez:
14
9
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) on magnetic resonance (MR) have been shown to correlate with neurovascular disease progression as markers of vascular leakage and hemosiderin deposition. Applying these techniques as monitoring biomarkers in clinical trials will be necessary; however, their validation across multiple MR platforms and institutions has not been rigorously verified. To validate quantitative measurement of MR biomarkers on multiple instruments at different institutions. Phantom validation between platforms and institutions. T 3T/QSM, T Philips Ingenia, Siemens Prisma, and Siemens Skyra at three different institutions were assessed. A QSM phantom with concentrations of gadolinium, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ppm was assayed. DCEQP was assessed by measuring a MultiHance bolus as the consistency of the width ratio of the curves at the input and outputs over a range of flow ratios between outputs. Each biomarker was assessed by measures of accuracy (Pearson correlation), precision (paired t-test between repeated measurements), and reproducibility (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] between instruments). QSM accuracy of r The phantom performed as expected and determined that MR measures of QSM and DCEQP are accurate and consistent across repeated measurements and between platforms. 1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1192-1199.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) and dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP) on magnetic resonance (MR) have been shown to correlate with neurovascular disease progression as markers of vascular leakage and hemosiderin deposition. Applying these techniques as monitoring biomarkers in clinical trials will be necessary; however, their validation across multiple MR platforms and institutions has not been rigorously verified.
PURPOSE
To validate quantitative measurement of MR biomarkers on multiple instruments at different institutions.
STUDY TYPE
Phantom validation between platforms and institutions.
PHANTOM MODEL
T
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
3T/QSM, T
ASSESSMENT
Philips Ingenia, Siemens Prisma, and Siemens Skyra at three different institutions were assessed. A QSM phantom with concentrations of gadolinium, corresponding to magnetic susceptibilities of 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 ppm was assayed. DCEQP was assessed by measuring a MultiHance bolus as the consistency of the width ratio of the curves at the input and outputs over a range of flow ratios between outputs.
STATISTICAL TESTS
Each biomarker was assessed by measures of accuracy (Pearson correlation), precision (paired t-test between repeated measurements), and reproducibility (analysis of covariance [ANCOVA] between instruments).
RESULTS
QSM accuracy of r
DATA CONCLUSION
The phantom performed as expected and determined that MR measures of QSM and DCEQP are accurate and consistent across repeated measurements and between platforms.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
1 Technical Efficacy Stage: 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;51:1192-1199.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31515878
doi: 10.1002/jmri.26927
pmc: PMC7065930
mid: NIHMS1051037
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1192-1199Subventions
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01 NS093908
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U01 NS104157
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : R01NS093908
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2019 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Lancet Neurol. 2016 Feb;15(2):166-173
pubmed: 26654287
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Mar;11(3):217-24
pubmed: 22297119
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Oct;54(4):813-21
pubmed: 16142715
Genet Med. 2015 Mar;17(3):188-196
pubmed: 25122144
Transl Stroke Res. 2013 Oct;4(5):500-6
pubmed: 24323376
Magn Reson Med. 2015 Jun;73(6):2100-10
pubmed: 24947227
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Dec;42(6):1592-600
pubmed: 25960320
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Apr;47(4):1133-1138
pubmed: 28791783
Neuroimage. 2016 Jan 15;125:446-455
pubmed: 26477653
Magn Reson Med. 2019 Feb;81(2):1229-1236
pubmed: 30284727
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Nov;62(5):1270-81
pubmed: 19780145
Stroke. 2014 Feb;45(2):598-601
pubmed: 24302484
Neurosurgery. 2019 Dec 1;85(6):843-853
pubmed: 30476251
Neuroimage Clin. 2013 Dec 10;4:182-9
pubmed: 24371801
J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2015 Oct;35(10):1632-9
pubmed: 25966944
J Affect Disord. 1991 Aug;22(4):199-210
pubmed: 1939929
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Apr;65(4):1036-42
pubmed: 21413067
Invest Radiol. 2014 Jul;49(7):498-504
pubmed: 24619210
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Jul;37(7):1209-15
pubmed: 26965464
Magn Reson Med. 2017 Sep;78(3):1080-1086
pubmed: 27699883
Neurosurgery. 2019 Apr 1;84(4):954-964
pubmed: 29660039
Tomography. 2019 Mar;5(1):77-89
pubmed: 30854445
Neurosurgery. 2017 May 1;80(5):665-680
pubmed: 28387823
Transl Oncol. 2014 Feb 01;7(1):65-71
pubmed: 24772209
Magn Reson Med. 2011 Sep;66(3):777-83
pubmed: 21465541
J Neurosurg. 2017 Jul;127(1):102-110
pubmed: 27494817
Invest Radiol. 2012 Apr;47(4):252-8
pubmed: 22373532