Phantom-based quality assurance for multicenter quantitative MRI in locally advanced cervical cancer.
Magnetic resonance imaging
Radiotherapy
Uterine cervical neoplasms
Journal
Radiotherapy and oncology : journal of the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology
ISSN: 1879-0887
Titre abrégé: Radiother Oncol
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8407192
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
12 2020
12 2020
Historique:
received:
04
06
2020
revised:
07
09
2020
accepted:
08
09
2020
pubmed:
16
9
2020
medline:
15
4
2021
entrez:
15
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
A wide variation of MRI systems is a challenge in multicenter imaging biomarker studies as it adds variation in quantitative MRI values. The aim of this study was to design and test a quality assurance (QA) framework based on phantom measurements, for the quantitative MRI protocols of a multicenter imaging biomarker trial of locally advanced cervical cancer. Fifteen institutes participated (five 1.5 T and ten 3 T scanners). Each institute optimized protocols for T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, T1, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-)MRI according to system possibilities, institutional preferences and study-specific constraints. Calibration phantoms with known values were used for validation. Benchmark protocols, similar on all systems, were used to investigate whether differences resulted from variations in institutional protocols or from system variations. Bias, repeatability (%RC), and reproducibility (%RDC) were determined. Ratios were used for T2 and T1 values. The institutional protocols showed a range in bias of 0.88-0.98 for T2 (median %RC = 1%; %RDC = 12%), -0.007 to 0.029 × 10 We designed a QA framework for quantitative MRI protocols and demonstrated for a multicenter trial for cervical cancer that measurement of consistent T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient values is feasible despite protocol differences. For DCE-MRI and T1 mapping with the variable flip angle method, this was more challenging.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
A wide variation of MRI systems is a challenge in multicenter imaging biomarker studies as it adds variation in quantitative MRI values. The aim of this study was to design and test a quality assurance (QA) framework based on phantom measurements, for the quantitative MRI protocols of a multicenter imaging biomarker trial of locally advanced cervical cancer.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Fifteen institutes participated (five 1.5 T and ten 3 T scanners). Each institute optimized protocols for T2, diffusion-weighted imaging, T1, and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-)MRI according to system possibilities, institutional preferences and study-specific constraints. Calibration phantoms with known values were used for validation. Benchmark protocols, similar on all systems, were used to investigate whether differences resulted from variations in institutional protocols or from system variations. Bias, repeatability (%RC), and reproducibility (%RDC) were determined. Ratios were used for T2 and T1 values.
RESULTS
The institutional protocols showed a range in bias of 0.88-0.98 for T2 (median %RC = 1%; %RDC = 12%), -0.007 to 0.029 × 10
CONCLUSION
We designed a QA framework for quantitative MRI protocols and demonstrated for a multicenter trial for cervical cancer that measurement of consistent T2 and apparent diffusion coefficient values is feasible despite protocol differences. For DCE-MRI and T1 mapping with the variable flip angle method, this was more challenging.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32931890
pii: S0167-8140(20)30785-4
doi: 10.1016/j.radonc.2020.09.013
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
114-121Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: This work was funded by a grant from Varian Medical Systems received by Kari Tanderup and Uulke van der Heide. Relevant financial activities outside the submitted work are reported for the following authors: Uulke van der Heide receives research funding from Philips Healthcare and Elekta AB. Remi Nout receives research funding from Elekta AB, Varian Medical Systems, and Accuray. Cornelius van den Berg receives research funding from Philips Healthcare.