A Phantom for diffusion‐weighted imaging of acute stroke

Laubach, Hans; Jakob, Peter M.; Loevblad, Karl O.; Baird, Alison E.; Bovo, Maria Picone; Edelman, Robert R.; Warach, Steven

doi:10.1002/jmri.1880080627

Cited by 67 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The signal intensity in the surrounding water bath has been nulled for the sake of clarity. The five sucrose bottles (a-e) have diffusion coefficients similar to those measured by Laubach and coworkers (14). Their mean diffusional kurtosis values are all below 0.1, consistent with nearly Gaussian diffusion.…”

Section: Human Studiessupporting

confidence: 71%

Diffusional kurtosis imaging: The quantification of non‐gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging

Jensen

Helpern

Ramani

et al. 2005

Magnetic Resonance in Med

2,133

2,569

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A magnetic resonance imaging method is presented for quantifying the degree to which water diffusion in biologic tissues is non-Gaussian. Since tissue structure is responsible for the deviation of water diffusion from the Gaussian behavior typically observed in homogeneous solutions, this method provides a specific measure of tissue structure, such as cellular compartments and membranes. The method is an extension of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging that requires the use of somewhat higher b values and a modified image postprocessing procedure. In addition to the diffusion coefficient, the method provides an estimate for the excess kurtosis of the diffusion displacement probability distribution, which is a dimensionless metric of the departure from a Gaussian form. From the study of six healthy adult subjects, the excess diffusional kurtosis is found to be significantly higher in white matter than in gray matter, reflecting the structural differences between these two types of cerebral tissues. Diffusional kurtosis imaging is related to q-space imaging methods, but is less demanding in terms of imaging time, hardware requirements, and postprocessing effort. It may be useful for assessing tissue structure abnormalities associated with a variety of neuropathologies.

show abstract

Section: Human Studiessupporting

confidence: 71%

Diffusional kurtosis imaging: The quantification of non‐gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging

Jensen

Helpern

Ramani

et al. 2005

Magnetic Resonance in Med

2,133

2,569

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changing the gel concentrations of agarose and sucrose is possible to simulate some properties of biological tissues in MRI (T1, T2, ADC-values, for example) such as healthy and pathological brain tissues. With this phantom the researchers observed that ADC variation between stroke-like areas and GM was similar to that found in human brain (Laubach et al, 1998).…”

Section: Isotropic Diffusion Phantomssupporting

confidence: 64%

“…2017 June;33(2): 156-165 Researchers suggest different kinds of phantoms for DWI and DTI QC, as well as different compounds and solutions to fill them (Madsen and Fullerton, 1982;Pierpaoli et al, 2009;Tofts et al, 2000). There are phantoms of isotropic diffusion for DWI (typically spheres or cylinders filled by liquid) (Laubach et al, 1998;Lavdas et al, 2013;Pierpaoli et al, 2009); fiber phantoms to simulate axonal tracts or cardiac muscle (Fieremans et al, 2008;Lorenz et al, 2008;Teh et al, 2016); phantoms made of capillary or microcapillary arrays permeated by liquid with diffusion properties and/or relaxation times similar to biological tissues (Ebrahimi et al, 2010) test tubes with different solutions (Pierpaoli et al, 2009;Tofts et al, 2000); biological phantoms, such as green asparagus inside a water container (Latt et al, 2007); or animal tissues (axons of pigs or mice) (Chen et al, 2014;Komlosh et al, 2008). There are gels, for isotropic or anisotropic diffusion studies, whose magnetic properties are similar to healthy or pathological tissue (Hellerbach et al, 2013;Kato et al, 2005).…”

Section: Mri Phantoms Described In Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Phantoms for diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging quality control: a review and new perspectives

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) combine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques and diffusion measures. In DWI, the contrast is defined by microscopic motion of water protons. Nowadays, DWI has become important for early diagnostic of acute stroke. DTI images are calculated from DWI images acquired in at least six directions, which give information of diffusion directionality, making it possible to reconstruct axonal or muscle fiber images. Both techniques have been applied to study body structures in healthy and pathological conditions. Currently, it is known that these images and derived parameters are quite sensitive to factors related to acquisition and processing. Magnetic field inhomogeneity, susceptibility, chemical shift, radiofrequency (RF) interference, eddy currents and low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) can have a more harmful effect in diffusion data than in T1-or T2-weighted image data. However, even today there are not reference phantoms and guidelines for DWI or DTI quality control (QC). Review: Proposals for construction and use of DWI and DTI QC phantoms can be found in literature. DWI have been evaluated using containers filled by gel or liquid with tissue-like MRI properties, as well as using microfabricated devices. DTI acquisitions also have been checked with these devices or using natural or artificial fiber structures. The head phantom from American College of Radiology (ACR) is also pointed out as an alternative for DTI QC. This article brings a discussion about proposed DWI and DTI phantoms, challenges involved and future perspectives for standardization of DWI and DTI QC.

show abstract

“…Phantom measurements have been made with alkanes [131] or other organic liquids [132] , which have ADC values in the range of brain tissue. Other materials include sucrose solutions [133,134] , iced water [125] and gels [135,136] . Chenevert et al [125] (2011) proposed a novel icewater phantom for DW-MRI multi-centre trials and investigated ADC variability across 20 MR scanners from 3 vendors (GE, Philips, Siemens) at 7 institutions at both 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths.…”

Section: Reproducibility Of Adc Values In Vitromentioning

confidence: 99%

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients,in-vitroandin-vivoreproducibility

Jafar

Parsaï

Miquel

2016

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is considerable disparity in the published apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values across different anatomies. Institutions are increasingly assessing repeatability and reproducibility of the derived ADC to determine its variation, which could potentially be used as an indicator in determining tumour aggressiveness or assessing tumour response. In this manuscript, a review of selected articles published to date in healthy extracranial body diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging is presented, detailing reported ADC values and discussing their variation across different studies. In total 115 studies were selected including 28 for liver parenchyma, 15 for kidney (renal parenchyma), 14 for spleen, 13 for pancreatic body, 6 for gallbladder, 13 for prostate, 13 for uterus (endometrium, myometrium, cervix) In addition, six phantom studies and thirteen in vivo studies were summarized to compare repeatability and reproducibility of the measured ADC. All selected phantom studies demonstrated lower intra-scanner and inter-scanner variation compared to in vivo studies. Based on the findings of this manuscript, it is recommended that protocols need to be optimised for the body part studied and that system-induced variability must be established using a standardized phantom in any clinical study. Reproducibility of the measured ADC must also be assessed in a volunteer population, as variations are far more significant in vivo compared with phantom studies. Core tip: Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging was highlighted as a potential cancer imaging biomarker by a team of experts in a report published in 2009. We review the variability of published diffusion values in the major extra-cranial organs and focus on the validation literature, both in vivo and in vitro . A total of 115 studies were selected including for liver parenchyma, kidney, pancreatic body, spleen, gallbladder, prostate, uterus (endometrium, myometrium, cervix) and breast. We also look in detail at the published repeatability and reproducibility studies, both in vivo and in phantoms. A series of recommendations based on our findings are given at the end of this review.Jafar MM, Parsai A, Miquel ME. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients, in vitro and in vivo reproducibility.

show abstract

A Phantom for diffusion‐weighted imaging of acute stroke

Cited by 67 publications

References 22 publications

Diffusional kurtosis imaging: The quantification of non‐gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging

Diffusional kurtosis imaging: The quantification of non‐gaussian water diffusion by means of magnetic resonance imaging

Phantoms for diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging quality control: a review and new perspectives

Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in cancer: Reported apparent diffusion coefficients,in-vitroandin-vivoreproducibility

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About