Cargando…
Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner
PURPOSE: To determine baseline accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) relaxation times over 12 months on a dedicated radiotherapy MRI scanner. METHODS: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) System Phantom was sca...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8598150/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34562341 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13432 |
_version_ | 1784600753257578496 |
---|---|
author | Carr, Madeline E. Keenan, Kathryn E. Rai, Robba Metcalfe, Peter Walker, Amy Holloway, Lois |
author_facet | Carr, Madeline E. Keenan, Kathryn E. Rai, Robba Metcalfe, Peter Walker, Amy Holloway, Lois |
author_sort | Carr, Madeline E. |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: To determine baseline accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) relaxation times over 12 months on a dedicated radiotherapy MRI scanner. METHODS: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) System Phantom was scanned monthly on a 3T MRI scanner for 1 year. T(1) was measured using inversion recovery (T(1)‐IR) and variable flip angle (T(1)‐VFA) sequences and T(2) was measured using a multi‐echo spin echo (T(2)‐SE) sequence. For each vial in the phantom, accuracy errors (%bias) were determined by the relative differences in measured T(1) and T(2) times compared to reference values. Reproducibility was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) of T(1) and T(2) measurements across monthly scans. Accuracy and reproducibility were mainly assessed on vials with relaxation times expected to be in physiological ranges at 3T. RESULTS: A strong linear correlation between measured and reference relaxation times was found for all sequences tested (R (2 )> 0.997). Baseline bias (and CV[%]) for T(1)‐IR, T(1)‐VFA and T(2)‐SE sequences were +2.0% (2.1), +6.5% (4.2), and +8.5% (1.9), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) on the scanner were considered sufficient for the sequences tested. No longitudinal trends of variation were deduced, suggesting less frequent measurements are required following the establishment of baselines. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8598150 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85981502021-12-02 Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner Carr, Madeline E. Keenan, Kathryn E. Rai, Robba Metcalfe, Peter Walker, Amy Holloway, Lois J Appl Clin Med Phys Medical Imaging PURPOSE: To determine baseline accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) relaxation times over 12 months on a dedicated radiotherapy MRI scanner. METHODS: An International Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine/National Institute of Standards and Technology (ISMRM/NIST) System Phantom was scanned monthly on a 3T MRI scanner for 1 year. T(1) was measured using inversion recovery (T(1)‐IR) and variable flip angle (T(1)‐VFA) sequences and T(2) was measured using a multi‐echo spin echo (T(2)‐SE) sequence. For each vial in the phantom, accuracy errors (%bias) were determined by the relative differences in measured T(1) and T(2) times compared to reference values. Reproducibility was measured by the coefficient of variation (CV) of T(1) and T(2) measurements across monthly scans. Accuracy and reproducibility were mainly assessed on vials with relaxation times expected to be in physiological ranges at 3T. RESULTS: A strong linear correlation between measured and reference relaxation times was found for all sequences tested (R (2 )> 0.997). Baseline bias (and CV[%]) for T(1)‐IR, T(1)‐VFA and T(2)‐SE sequences were +2.0% (2.1), +6.5% (4.2), and +8.5% (1.9), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) on the scanner were considered sufficient for the sequences tested. No longitudinal trends of variation were deduced, suggesting less frequent measurements are required following the establishment of baselines. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-09-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8598150/ /pubmed/34562341 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13432 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Journal of Applied Clinical Medical Physics published by Wiley Periodicals, LLC on behalf of The American Association of Physicists in Medicine https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Medical Imaging Carr, Madeline E. Keenan, Kathryn E. Rai, Robba Metcalfe, Peter Walker, Amy Holloway, Lois Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner |
title | Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner |
title_full | Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner |
title_fullStr | Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner |
title_full_unstemmed | Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner |
title_short | Determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of T(1) and T(2) in a 3T MRI scanner |
title_sort | determining the longitudinal accuracy and reproducibility of t(1) and t(2) in a 3t mri scanner |
topic | Medical Imaging |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8598150/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34562341 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acm2.13432 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT carrmadelinee determiningthelongitudinalaccuracyandreproducibilityoft1andt2ina3tmriscanner AT keenankathryne determiningthelongitudinalaccuracyandreproducibilityoft1andt2ina3tmriscanner AT rairobba determiningthelongitudinalaccuracyandreproducibilityoft1andt2ina3tmriscanner AT metcalfepeter determiningthelongitudinalaccuracyandreproducibilityoft1andt2ina3tmriscanner AT walkeramy determiningthelongitudinalaccuracyandreproducibilityoft1andt2ina3tmriscanner AT hollowaylois determiningthelongitudinalaccuracyandreproducibilityoft1andt2ina3tmriscanner |