Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting

Background The 3D breast magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) technique enables T1 and T2 mapping in breast tissues. Combined repeatability and reproducibility studies on breast T1 and T2 relaxometry are lacking. Purpose To assess test–retest and two‐visit repeatability and interscanner reproducibility of the 3D breast MRF technique in a single‐institution setting. Study Type Prospective. Subjects Eighteen women (median age 29 years, range, 22–33 years) underwent Visit 1 scans on scanner 1. Ten of these women underwent test–retest scan repositioning after a 10‐minute interval. Thirteen women had Visit 2 scans within 7–15 days in same menstrual cycle. The remaining five women had Visit 2 scans in the same menstrual phase in next menstrual cycle. Five women were also scanned on scanner 2 at both visits for interscanner reproducibility. Field Strength/Sequence Two 3T MR scanners with the 3D breast MRF technique. Assessment T1 and T2 MRF maps of both breasts. Statistical Tests Mean T1 and T2 values for normal fibroglandular tissues were quantified at all scans. For variability, between and within‐subjects coefficients of variation (bCV and wCV, respectively) were assessed. Repeatability was assessed with Bland–Altman analysis and coefficient of repeatability (CR). Reproducibility was assessed with interscanner coefficient of variation (CoV) and Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Results The bCV at test–retest scans was 9–12% for T1, 7–17% for T2, wCV was <4% for T1, and <7% for T2. For two visits in same menstrual cycle, bCV was 10–15% for T1, 13–17% for T2, wCV was <7% for T1 and <5% for T2. For two visits in the same menstrual phase, bCV was 6–14% for T1, 15–18% for T2, wCV was <7% for T1, and <9% for T2. For test–retest scans, CR for T1 and T2 were 130 msec and 11 msec. For two visit scans, CR was <290 msec for T1 and 10–14 msec for T2. Interscanner CoV was 3.3–3.6% for T1 and 5.1–6.6% for T2, with no differences between interscanner measurements (P = 1.00 for T1, P = 0.344 for T2). Data Conclusion 3D breast MRF measurements are repeatable across scan timings and scanners and may be useful in clinical applications in breast imaging. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1133–1143.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Repeatability and reproducibility of 3D MR fingerprinting relaxometry measurements in normal breast tissue

Panda

Chen

Ropella-Panagis

et al. 2019

“…For example, using ice/water phantoms (ADC = 1.1 10 −3 mm 2 /s), Malyarenko et al demonstrated short‐term test/retest repeatability wCV <0.5% and day‐to‐day wCV <2.2%, across a range of vendors and field strengths. With a similar phantom, Sorace et al reported <0.01% average difference in ADC between repeated scans with intrascan repositioning of the phantom for three instances of a single scanner platform. These and other phantom results generally indicate that the scanner‐dependent variability in ADC measurement of uniform media is small compared with in vivo effects and ROI delineation within nonuniform tissues.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Test–retest repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measures by breast DWI: Results from the ACRIN 6698 trial

Newitt

Zhang

Gibbs

et al. 2018

Background Quantitative diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) MRI is a promising technique for cancer characterization and treatment monitoring. Knowledge of the reproducibility of DWI metrics in breast tumors is necessary to apply DWI as a clinical biomarker. Purpose To evaluate the repeatability and reproducibility of breast tumor apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in a multi‐institution clinical trial setting, using standardized DWI protocols and quality assurance (QA) procedures. Study Type Prospective. Subjects In all, 89 women from nine institutions undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for invasive breast cancer. Field Strength/Sequence DWI was acquired before and after patient repositioning using a four b‐value, single‐shot echo‐planar sequence at 1.5T or 3.0T. Assessment A QA procedure by trained operators assessed artifacts, fat suppression, and signal‐to‐noise ratio, and determine study analyzability. Mean tumor ADC was measured via manual segmentation of the multislice tumor region referencing DWI and contrast‐enhanced images. Twenty cases were evaluated multiple times to assess intra‐ and interoperator variability. Segmentation similarity was assessed via the Sørenson–Dice similarity coefficient. Statistical Tests Repeatability and reproducibility were evaluated using within‐subject coefficient of variation (wCV), intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), agreement index (AI), and repeatability coefficient (RC). Correlations were measured by Pearson's correlation coefficients. Results In all, 71 cases (80%) passed QA evaluation: 44 at 1.5T, 27 at 3.0T; 60 pretreatment, 11 after 3 weeks of taxane‐based treatment. ADC repeatability was excellent: wCV = 4.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.0, 5.7%), ICC = 0.97 (95% CI 0.95, 0.98), AI = 0.83 (95% CI 0.76, 0.87), and RC = 0.16 * 10−3 mm2/sec (95% CI 0.13, 0.19). The results were similar across field strengths and timepoint subgroups. Reproducibility was excellent: interreader ICC = 0.92 (95% CI 0.80, 0.97) and intrareader ICC = 0.91 (95% CI 0.78, 0.96). Data Conclusion Breast tumor ADC can be measured with excellent repeatability and reproducibility in a multi‐institution setting using a standardized protocol and QA procedure. Improvements to DWI image quality could reduce loss of data in clinical trials. Level of Evidence: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:1617–1628.

Quantitative imaging biomarkers alliance (QIBA) recommendations for improved precision of DWI and DCE‐MRI derived biomarkers in multicenter oncology trials

Shukla–Dave

Obuchowski

Chenevert

et al. 2018

271

232

Physiological properties of tumors can be measured both in vivo and noninvasively by diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Although these techniques have been used for more than two decades to study tumor diffusion, perfusion, and/or permeability, the methods and studies on how to reduce measurement error and bias in the derived imaging metrics is still lacking in the literature. This is of paramount importance because the objective is to translate these quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) into clinical trials, and ultimately in clinical practice. Standardization of the image acquisition using appropriate phantoms is the first step from a technical performance standpoint. The next step is to assess whether the imaging metrics have clinical value and meet the requirements for being a QIB as defined by the Radiological Society of North America's Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA). The goal and mission of QIBA and the National Cancer Institute Quantitative Imaging Network (QIN) initiatives are to provide technical performance standards (QIBA profiles) and QIN tools for producing reliable QIBs for use in the clinical imaging community. Some of QIBA's development of quantitative diffusion‐weighted imaging and dynamic contrast‐enhanced QIB profiles has been hampered by the lack of literature for repeatability and reproducibility of the derived QIBs. The available research on this topic is scant and is not in sync with improvements or upgrades in MRI technology over the years. This review focuses on the need for QIBs in oncology applications and emphasizes the importance of the assessment of their reproducibility and repeatability. Level of Evidence: 5 Technical Efficacy Stage: 1 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;49:e101–e121.