TY - JOUR
T1 - Optimization of acquisition and analysis methods for clinical dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI using a population-based digital reference object
AU - Semmineh, N. B.
AU - Bell, L. C.
AU - Stokes, A. M.
AU - Hu, L. S.
AU - Boxerman, J. L.
AU - Quarles, C. C.
N1 - Funding Information:
From the Department of Imaging Research (N.B.S., L.C.B., A.M.S., C.C.Q.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona; Department of Radiology (L.S.H.), Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona; and Department of Diagnostic Imaging (J.L.B.), Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode Island. This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (R01 CA213158), the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (ADHS16– 162414), and the Barrow Neurological Foundation (R01CA221938, C.C.Q., L.S.H., J.L.B., and U01CA220378, L.S.H.) Please address correspondence to Chad Quarles, PhD, Barrow Neurological Institute, 350 W Thomas Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85013; e-mail: Chad.Quarles@BarrowNeuro.org; @nbsemmin
Funding Information:
Disclosures: Natenael B. Semmineh—RELATED: Grant: National Institutes of Health, Arizona Biomedical Research Commission, and Barrow Neurological Foundation, Comments: This work was supported by National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (R01 CA213158), the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (ADHS16– 162414), and the Barrow Neurological Foundation.* Christopher C. Quarles— RELATED:Grant: National Institutes of Health.* Leland S. Hu—RELATED: Grant: National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute.* *Money paid to the institution.
Funding Information:
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute (R01 CA213158), the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission (ADHS16- 162414), and the Barrow Neurological Foundation (R01CA221938, C.C.Q., L.S.H., J.L.B., and U01CA220378, L.S.H.)
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 by the American Society of Neuroradiology.
PY - 2018/11/1
Y1 - 2018/11/1
N2 - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The accuracy of DSC-MR imaging CBV maps in glioblastoma depends on acquisition and analysis protocols. Multisite protocol heterogeneity has challenged standardization initiatives due to the difficulties of in vivo validation. This study sought to compare the accuracy of routinely used protocols using a digital reference object. MATERIALSANDMETHODS: The digital reference object consisted of approximately 10,000 simulated voxels recapitulating typical signal heterogeneity encountered in vivo. The influence of acquisition and postprocessing methods on CBV reliability was evaluated across 6912 parameter combinations, including contrast agent dosing schemes, pulse sequence parameters, field strengths, and postprocessing methods. Accuracy and precision were assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: Across all parameter space, the optimal protocol included full-dose contrast agent preload and bolus, intermediate (60°) flip angle, 30-ms TE, and postprocessing with a leakage-correction algorithm (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.97, coefficient of variation= 6.6%). Protocols with no preload or fractional dose preload and bolus using these acquisition parameters were generally less robust. However, a protocol with no preload, full-dose bolus, and low (30°) flip angle performed very well (concordance correlation coefficient= 0.93, coefficient of variation=8.7% at 1.5T and concordance correlation coefficient=0.92, coefficient of variation=8.2% at 3T). CONCLUSIONS: Schemes with full-dose preload and bolus maximize CBV accuracy and reduce variability, which could enable smaller sample sizes and more reliable detection of CBV changes in clinical trials. When a lower total contrast agent dose is desired, use of a low flip angle, no preload, and full-dose bolus protocol may provide an attractive alternative.
AB - BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The accuracy of DSC-MR imaging CBV maps in glioblastoma depends on acquisition and analysis protocols. Multisite protocol heterogeneity has challenged standardization initiatives due to the difficulties of in vivo validation. This study sought to compare the accuracy of routinely used protocols using a digital reference object. MATERIALSANDMETHODS: The digital reference object consisted of approximately 10,000 simulated voxels recapitulating typical signal heterogeneity encountered in vivo. The influence of acquisition and postprocessing methods on CBV reliability was evaluated across 6912 parameter combinations, including contrast agent dosing schemes, pulse sequence parameters, field strengths, and postprocessing methods. Accuracy and precision were assessed using the concordance correlation coefficient and coefficient of variation. RESULTS: Across all parameter space, the optimal protocol included full-dose contrast agent preload and bolus, intermediate (60°) flip angle, 30-ms TE, and postprocessing with a leakage-correction algorithm (concordance correlation coefficient = 0.97, coefficient of variation= 6.6%). Protocols with no preload or fractional dose preload and bolus using these acquisition parameters were generally less robust. However, a protocol with no preload, full-dose bolus, and low (30°) flip angle performed very well (concordance correlation coefficient= 0.93, coefficient of variation=8.7% at 1.5T and concordance correlation coefficient=0.92, coefficient of variation=8.2% at 3T). CONCLUSIONS: Schemes with full-dose preload and bolus maximize CBV accuracy and reduce variability, which could enable smaller sample sizes and more reliable detection of CBV changes in clinical trials. When a lower total contrast agent dose is desired, use of a low flip angle, no preload, and full-dose bolus protocol may provide an attractive alternative.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85056632144&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85056632144&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3174/ajnr.A5827
DO - 10.3174/ajnr.A5827
M3 - Article
C2 - 30309842
AN - SCOPUS:85056632144
SN - 0195-6108
VL - 39
SP - 1981
EP - 1988
JO - American Journal of Neuroradiology
JF - American Journal of Neuroradiology
IS - 11
ER -