On the dependence of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging on scanner system characteristics and acquisition parameters: A large multicenter and multiparametric phantom study with unsupervised clustering analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this multicenter phantom study was to exploit an innovative approach, based on an extensive acquisition protocol and unsupervised clustering analysis, in order to assess any potential bias in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) estimation due to different scanner characteristics. Moreover, we aimed at assessing, for the first time, any effect of acquisition plan/phase encoding direction on ADC estimation. METHODS: Water phantom acquisitions were carried out on 39 scanners. DWI acquisitions (b-value = 0-200-400-600-800-1000 s/mm2) with different acquisition plans (axial, coronal, sagittal) and phase encoding directions (anterior/posterior and right/left, for the axial acquisition plan), for 3 orthogonal diffusion weighting gradient directions, were performed. For each acquisition setup, ADC values were measured in-center and off-center (6 different positions), resulting in an entire dataset of 84 × 39 = 3276 ADC values. Spatial uniformity of ADC maps was assessed by means of the percentage difference between off-center and in-center ADC values (Δ). RESULTS: No significant dependence of in-center ADC values on acquisition plan/phase encoding direction was found. Ward unsupervised clustering analysis showed 3 distinct clusters of scanners and an association between Δ-values and manufacturer/model, whereas no association between Δ-values and maximum gradient strength, slew rate or static magnetic field strength was revealed. Several acquisition setups showed significant differences among groups, indicating the introduction of different biases in ADC estimation. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised clustering analysis of DWI data, obtained from several scanners using an extensive acquisition protocol, allows to reveal an association between measured ADC values and manufacturer/model of scanner, as well as to identify suboptimal DWI acquisition setups for accurate ADC estimation.

A straightforward multiparametric quality control protocol for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy: Validation and comparison of various 1.5 T and 3 T clinical scanner systems.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to propose and validate across various clinical scanner systems a straightforward multiparametric quality assurance procedure for proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS). METHODS: Eighteen clinical 1.5 T and 3 T scanner systems for MRS, from 16 centres and 3 different manufacturers, were enrolled in the study. A standard spherical water phantom was employed by all centres. The acquisition protocol included 3 sets of single (isotropic) voxel (size 20 mm) PRESS acquisitions with unsuppressed water signal and acquisition voxel position at isocenter as well as off-center, repeated 4/5 times within approximately 2 months. Water peak linewidth (LW) and area under the water peak (AP) were estimated. RESULTS: LW values [mean (standard deviation)] were 1.4 (1.0) Hz and 0.8 (0.3) Hz for 3 T and 1.5 T scanners, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) (across all scanners) coefficient of variation of LW and AP for different spatial positions of acquisition voxel were 43% (20%) and 11% (11%), respectively. The mean (standard deviation) phantom T2values were 1145 (50) ms and 1010 (95) ms for 1.5 T and 3 T scanners, respectively. The mean (standard deviation) (across all scanners) coefficients of variation for repeated measurements of LW, AP and T2 were 25% (20%), 10% (14%) and 5% (2%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We proposed a straightforward multiparametric and not time consuming quality control protocol for MRS, which can be included in routine and periodic quality assurance procedures. The protocol has been validated and proven to be feasible in a multicentre comparison study of a fairly large number of clinical 1.5 T and 3 T scanner systems.

Dependence of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement on diffusion gradient direction and spatial position - A quality assurance intercomparison study of forty-four scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging.

PURPOSE: To propose an MRI quality assurance procedure that can be used for routine controls and multi-centre comparison of different MR-scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 44 MR-scanners with different field strengths (1 T, 1.5 T and 3 T) were included in the study. DWI acquisitions (b-value range 0-1000 s/mm2), with three different orthogonal diffusion gradient directions, were performed for each MR-scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a standard spherical plastic doped water phantom. Phantom solution ADC value and its dependence with temperature was measured using a DOSY sequence on a 600 MHz NMR spectrometer. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) along each diffusion gradient direction and mean ADC were estimated, both at magnet isocentre and in six different position 50 mm away from isocentre, along positive and negative AP, RL and HF directions. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC at isocentre: more than 90% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation was 11.3%. Away from isocentre, the effect of the diffusion gradient direction on ADC estimation was larger than 5% in 47% of included scanners and a spatial non uniformity larger than 5% was reported in 13% of centres. CONCLUSION: ADC accuracy and spatial uniformity can vary appreciably depending on MR scanner model, sequence implementation (i.e. gradient diffusion direction) and hardware characteristics. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be employed in order to assess the accuracy and spatial uniformity of estimated ADC values, in single- as well as multi-centre studies.