Efficiency and Accuracy Evaluation of Multiple Diffusion‐Weighted MRI Techniques Across Different Scanners

Author:

Crop Frederik12ORCID,Robert Clémence1,Viard Romain34,Dumont Julien3,Kawalko Marine5,Makala Pauline6,Liem Xavier6,El Aoud Imen5,Ben Miled Aicha5,Chaton Victor5,Patin Lucas5,Pasquier David67ORCID,Guillaud Ophélie5,Vandendorpe Benjamin6,Mirabel Xavier6,Ceugnart Luc5,Decoene Camille1,Lacornerie Thomas1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medical Physics Centre Oscar Lambret Lille France

2. University of Lille, IEMN Lille France

3. University of Lille, CNRS, Inserm, CHU Lille, Institut Pasteur de Lille, PLBS UAR 2014‐US 41 Lille France

4. University of Lille, Inserm, CHU Lille, U1172‐LilNCog‐Lille Neuroscience & Cognition Lille France

5. Department of Radiology Centre Oscar Lambret Lille France

6. Academic Department of Radiotherapy Centre Oscar Lambret Lille France

7. University of Lille Centre de recherche en informatique, Signal et automatique de Lille Lille France

Abstract

BackgroundThe choice between different diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) techniques is difficult as each comes with tradeoffs for efficient clinical routine imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy.PurposeTo quantify signal‐to‐noise‐ratio (SNR) efficiency, ADC accuracy, artifacts, and distortions for different DWI acquisition techniques, coils, and scanners.Study TypePhantom, in vivo intraindividual biomarker accuracy between DWI techniques and independent ratings.Population/PhantomsNIST diffusion phantom.51 Patients: 40 with prostate cancer and 11 with head‐and‐neck cancer at 1.5 TField Strength/SequenceEcho planar imaging (EPI): 1.5 T and 3 T Siemens; 3 T Philips.Distortion‐reducing: RESOLVE (1.5 and 3 T Siemens); Turbo Spin Echo (TSE)‐SPLICE (3 T Philips).Small field‐of‐view (FOV): ZoomitPro (1.5 T Siemens); IRIS (3 T Philips).Head‐and‐neck and flexible coils.AssessmentSNR Efficiency, geometrical distortions, and susceptibility artifacts were quantified for different b‐values in a phantom. ADC accuracy/agreement was quantified in phantom and for 51 patients. In vivo image quality was independently rated by four experts.Statistical TestsQIBA methodology for accuracy: trueness, repeatability, reproducibility, Bland–Altman 95% Limits‐of‐Agreement (LOA) for ADC. Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank and student tests on P < 0.05 level.ResultsThe ZoomitPro small FOV sequence improved b‐image efficiency by 8%–14%, reduced artifacts and observer scoring for most raters at the cost of smaller FOV compared to EPI. The TSE‐SPLICE technique reduced artifacts almost completely at a 24% efficiency cost compared to EPI for b‐values ≤500 sec/mm2. Phantom ADC 95% LOA trueness were within ±0.03 × 10−3 mm2/sec except for small FOV IRIS. The in vivo ADC agreement between techniques, however, resulted in 95% LOAs in the order of ±0.3 × 10−3 mm2/sec with up to 0.2 × 10−3 mm2/sec of bias.Data ConclusionZoomitPro for Siemens and TSE SPLICE for Philips resulted in a trade‐off between efficiency and artifacts. Phantom ADC quality control largely underestimated in vivo accuracy: significant ADC bias and variability was found between techniques in vivo.Level of Evidence3Technical Efficacy Stage2

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3