Toward Uniform Implementation Of Parametric Map Digital Imaging And Communication In Medicine Standard In Multisite Quantitative Diffusion Imaging Studies

This paper reports on results of a multisite collaborative project launched by the MRI subgroup of Quantitative Imaging Network to assess current capability and provide future guidelines for generating a standard parametric diffusion map Digital Imaging and Communication in Medicine (DICOM) in clinical trials that utilize quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Participating sites used a multivendor DWI DICOM dataset of a single phantom to generate parametric maps (PMs) of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) based on two models. The results were evaluated for numerical consistency among models and true phantom ADC values, as well as for consistency of metadata with attributes required by the DICOM standards. This analysis identified missing metadata descriptive of the sources for detected numerical discrepancies among ADC models. Instead of the DICOM PM object, all sites stored ADC maps as DICOM MR objects, generally lacking designated attributes and coded terms for quantitative DWI modeling. Source-image reference, model parameters, ADC units and scale, deemed important for numerical consistency, were either missing or stored using nonstandard conventions. Guided by the identified limitations, the DICOM PM standard has been amended to include coded terms for the relevant diffusion models. Open-source software has been developed to support conversion of site-specific formats into the standard representation

Accuracy, repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification methods used for DCEâ MRI: Results from a multicenter phantom study

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142505/1/mrm26903_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142505/2/mrm26903.pd

QIN DAWG Validation of Gradient Nonlinearity Bias Correction Workflow for Quantitative Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Multicenter Trials

Previous research has shown that system-dependent gradient nonlinearity (GNL) introduces a significant spatial bias (nonuniformity) in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Here, the feasibility of centralized retrospective system-specific correction of GNL bias for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in multi-site clinical trials is demonstrated across diverse scanners independent of the scanned object. Using corrector maps generated from system characterization by ice-water phantom measurement completed in the previous project phase, GNL bias correction was performed for test ADC measurements from an independent DWI phantom (room temperature agar) at two offset locations in the bore. The precomputed three-dimensional GNL correctors were retrospectively applied to test DWI scans by the central analysis site. The correction was blinded to reference DWI of the agar phantom at magnet isocenter where the GNL bias is negligible. The performance was evaluated from changes in ADC region of interest histogram statistics before and after correction with respect to the unbiased reference ADC values provided by sites. Both absolute error and nonuniformity of the ADC map induced by GNL (median, 12%; range, −35% to +10%) were substantially reduced by correction (7-fold in median and 3-fold in range). The residual ADC nonuniformity errors were attributed to measurement noise and other non-GNL sources. Correction of systematic GNL bias resulted in a 2-fold decrease in technical variability across scanners (down to site temperature range). The described validation of GNL bias correction marks progress toward implementation of this technology in multicenter trials that utilize quantitative DWI

Multisite Concordance Of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measurements Across The Nci Quantitative Imaging Network

Diffusion weighted MRI has become ubiquitous in many areas of medicine, including cancer diagnosis and treatment response monitoring. Reproducibility of diffusion metrics is essential for their acceptance as quantitative biomarkers in these areas. We examined the variability in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) obtained from both postprocessing software implementations utilized by the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network and online scan time-generated ADC maps. Phantom and in vivo breast studies were evaluated for two (ADC 2 ) and four (ADC 4 ) b-value diffusion metrics. Concordance of the majority of implementations was excellent for both phantom ADC measures and in vivo ADC 2 , with relative biases \u3c0.1% (ADC 2 ) and \u3c0.5% (phantom ADC 4 ) but with higher deviations in ADC at the lowest phantom ADC values. In vivo ADC 4 concordance was good, with typical biases of ±2% to 3% but higher for online maps. Multiple b-value ADC implementations were separated into two groups determined by the fitting algorithm. Intergroup mean ADC differences ranged from negligible for phantom data to 2.8% for ADC 4 in vivo data. Some higher deviations were found for individual implementations and online parametric maps. Despite generally good concordance, implementation biases in ADC measures are sometimes significant and may be large enough to be of concern in multisite studies

Multisite concordance of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements across the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network

Diffusion weighted MRI has become ubiquitous in many areas of medicine, including cancer diagnosis and treatment response monitoring. Reproducibility of diffusion metrics is essential for their acceptance as quantitative biomarkers in these areas. We examined the variability in the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) obtained from both postprocessing software implementations utilized by the NCI Quantitative Imaging Network and online scan time-generated ADC maps. Phantom and in vivo breast studies were evaluated for two ([Formula: see text]) and four ([Formula: see text]) [Formula: see text]-value diffusion metrics. Concordance of the majority of implementations was excellent for both phantom ADC measures and in vivo [Formula: see text], with relative biases [Formula: see text] ([Formula: see text]) and [Formula: see text] (phantom [Formula: see text]) but with higher deviations in ADC at the lowest phantom ADC values. In vivo [Formula: see text] concordance was good, with typical biases of [Formula: see text] to 3% but higher for online maps. Multiple b-value ADC implementations were separated into two groups determined by the fitting algorithm. Intergroup mean ADC differences ranged from negligible for phantom data to 2.8% for [Formula: see text] in vivo data. Some higher deviations were found for individual implementations and online parametric maps. Despite generally good concordance, implementation biases in ADC measures are sometimes significant and may be large enough to be of concern in multisite studies