Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites

Nicholas Hobson, Sean P. Polster, Ying Cao, Kelly Flemming, Yunhong Shu, John Huston, Chandra Y. Gerrard, Reed Selwyn, Marc Mabray, Atif Zafar, Romuald Girard, Julián Carrión-Penagos, Yu Fen Chen, Todd Parrish, Xiaohong Joe Zhou, James I. Koenig, Robert Shenkar, Agnieszka Stadnik, Janne Koskimäki, Alexey DimovDallas Turley, Timothy Carroll, Issam A. Awad

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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: T1/susceptibility phantom, two-compartment dynamic flow phantom. Field Strength/Sequence: 3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR. 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 r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48). 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 2019.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalJournal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Permeability
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy
Biomarkers
Hemosiderin
Gadolinium
Blood Vessels
Disease Progression
Clinical Trials
mesoglycan

Keywords

  • cavernoma
  • cavernous angioma
  • cavernous malformation
  • clinical trial
  • dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP)
  • MRI
  • phantom validation
  • quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites. / Hobson, Nicholas; Polster, Sean P.; Cao, Ying; Flemming, Kelly; Shu, Yunhong; Huston, John; Gerrard, Chandra Y.; Selwyn, Reed; Mabray, Marc; Zafar, Atif; Girard, Romuald; Carrión-Penagos, Julián; Chen, Yu Fen; Parrish, Todd; Zhou, Xiaohong Joe; Koenig, James I.; Shenkar, Robert; Stadnik, Agnieszka; Koskimäki, Janne; Dimov, Alexey; Turley, Dallas; Carroll, Timothy; Awad, Issam A.

In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hobson, N, Polster, SP, Cao, Y, Flemming, K, Shu, Y, Huston, J, Gerrard, CY, Selwyn, R, Mabray, M, Zafar, A, Girard, R, Carrión-Penagos, J, Chen, YF, Parrish, T, Zhou, XJ, Koenig, JI, Shenkar, R, Stadnik, A, Koskimäki, J, Dimov, A, Turley, D, Carroll, T & Awad, IA 2019, 'Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites', Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26927
Hobson, Nicholas ; Polster, Sean P. ; Cao, Ying ; Flemming, Kelly ; Shu, Yunhong ; Huston, John ; Gerrard, Chandra Y. ; Selwyn, Reed ; Mabray, Marc ; Zafar, Atif ; Girard, Romuald ; Carrión-Penagos, Julián ; Chen, Yu Fen ; Parrish, Todd ; Zhou, Xiaohong Joe ; Koenig, James I. ; Shenkar, Robert ; Stadnik, Agnieszka ; Koskimäki, Janne ; Dimov, Alexey ; Turley, Dallas ; Carroll, Timothy ; Awad, Issam A. / Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites. In: Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. 2019.
@article{28a03d0db64247a58545d6fb6d16719a,
title = "Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites",
abstract = "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: T1/susceptibility phantom, two-compartment dynamic flow phantom. Field Strength/Sequence: 3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR. 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 r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48). 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 2019.",
keywords = "cavernoma, cavernous angioma, cavernous malformation, clinical trial, dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP), MRI, phantom validation, quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)",
author = "Nicholas Hobson and Polster, {Sean P.} and Ying Cao and Kelly Flemming and Yunhong Shu and John Huston and Gerrard, {Chandra Y.} and Reed Selwyn and Marc Mabray and Atif Zafar and Romuald Girard and Juli{\'a}n Carri{\'o}n-Penagos and Chen, {Yu Fen} and Todd Parrish and Zhou, {Xiaohong Joe} and Koenig, {James I.} and Robert Shenkar and Agnieszka Stadnik and Janne Koskim{\"a}ki and Alexey Dimov and Dallas Turley and Timothy Carroll and Awad, {Issam A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/jmri.26927",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging",
issn = "1053-1807",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Phantom validation of quantitative susceptibility and dynamic contrast-enhanced permeability MR sequences across instruments and sites

AU - Hobson, Nicholas

AU - Polster, Sean P.

AU - Cao, Ying

AU - Flemming, Kelly

AU - Shu, Yunhong

AU - Huston, John

AU - Gerrard, Chandra Y.

AU - Selwyn, Reed

AU - Mabray, Marc

AU - Zafar, Atif

AU - Girard, Romuald

AU - Carrión-Penagos, Julián

AU - Chen, Yu Fen

AU - Parrish, Todd

AU - Zhou, Xiaohong Joe

AU - Koenig, James I.

AU - Shenkar, Robert

AU - Stadnik, Agnieszka

AU - Koskimäki, Janne

AU - Dimov, Alexey

AU - Turley, Dallas

AU - Carroll, Timothy

AU - Awad, Issam A.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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: T1/susceptibility phantom, two-compartment dynamic flow phantom. Field Strength/Sequence: 3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR. 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 r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48). 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 2019.

AB - 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: T1/susceptibility phantom, two-compartment dynamic flow phantom. Field Strength/Sequence: 3T/QSM, T1 mapping, dynamic 2D SPGR. 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 r2 > 0.997 on all three platforms was measured. Precision (P = 0.66 Achieva, P = 0.76 Prisma, P = 0.69 Skyra) and reproducibility (P = 0.89) were good. T1 mapping of accuracy was r2 > 0.98. No significant difference between width ratio regression slopes at site 2 (P = 0.669) or site 3 (P = 0.305), and no significant difference between width ratio regression slopes between sites was detected by ANCOVA (P = 0.48). 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 2019.

KW - cavernoma

KW - cavernous angioma

KW - cavernous malformation

KW - clinical trial

KW - dynamic contrast-enhanced quantitative permeability (DCEQP)

KW - MRI

KW - phantom validation

KW - quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073810435&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85073810435&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/jmri.26927

DO - 10.1002/jmri.26927

M3 - Article

C2 - 31515878

AN - SCOPUS:85073810435

JO - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

JF - Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

SN - 1053-1807

ER -