Between-Scanner and Between-Visit Variation in Normal White Matter Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values in the Setting of a Multi-Center Clinical Trial
To study the between-scanner variation and the between-visit reproducibility of brain apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements in the setting of a multi-center chemotherapy clinical trial for glioblastoma multiforme.
Methods and Materials
ADC maps of 52 patients at six sites were calculated in-house from diffusion-weighted images obtained by seven individual scanner models of two vendors. The median and coefficient of variation (CV) of normal brain white matter ADC values from a defined region of interest were used to evaluate the differences among scanner models, vendors, magnetic fields, as well as successive visits. All patients participating in this study signed institutional review board approved informed consent. Data acquisition was performed in compliance with all applicable Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations. The study spanned from August 1, 2006, to January 29, 2008.
For baseline median ADC, no difference was observed between the different scanner models, different vendors, and different magnetic field strength. For baseline ADC CV, a significant difference was found between different scanner models (p = 0.0002). No between-scanner difference was observed in ADC changes between two visits. For between-visit reproducibility, significant difference was seen between the ADC values measured at two successive visits for the whole patient group.
The CVs varied significantly between scanners, presumably due to image noise. Consistent scanner parameter setup can improve reproducibility of the ADC measurements between visits.
KeywordsADC Normal white matter Between-scanner variation Between-visit reproducibility
- 9.Farrell JA, Landman BA, Jones CK, Smith SA, Prince JL, van Zijl PC, Mori S. Effects of signal-to-noise ratio on the accuracy and reproducibility of diffusion tensor imaging-derived fractional anisotropy, mean diffusivity, and principal eigenvector measurements at 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007;26:756–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Huisman TA, Loenneker T, Barta G, Bellemann ME, Hennig J, Fischer JE, Il’yasov KA. Quantitative diffusion tensor MR imaging of the brain: field strength related variance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and fractional anisotropy (FA) scalars. Eur Radiol. 2006;16(8):1651–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 11.Koizumi K, Masuda K, Komizu M, Ikemoto Y, Yoshimura M, Iguchi H, Hiraga A, Kobayashi A. Report on the ECR2003 (European Congress of Radiology): comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) between different MRI scanners. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi. 2003;59(7):825–6. (Japanese).PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kono K, Inoue Y, Nakayama K, Shakudo M, Morino M, Ohata K, Wakasa K, Yamada R. The role of diffusion-weighted imaging in patients with brain tumors. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2001;22:1081–8.Google Scholar
- 13.Kubo H, Maeda M, Araki A. Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficients between two-point and multi-point analyses using high-b-value diffusion MR imaging. Jpn Soc Radiol Technol. 2001;57(6):634–8.Google Scholar
- 17.Mardor Y, Pfeffer R, Spiegelmann R, Roth Y, Maier SE, Nissim O, Berger R, Glicksman A, Baram J, Orenstein A, Cohen JS, Tichler T. Early detection of response to radiation therapy in patients with brain malignancies using conventional and high b-value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. J Clin Oncol. 2003;21:1094–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, Takahara T, Dzik-Jurasz A, Ross BD, Van Cauteren M, Collins D, Hammoud DA, Rustin GJ, Taouli B, Choyke PL. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia. 2009;11(2):102–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 21.Pirzkall A, Ozturk E, Lee MC, Lupo J, Crawford FW, Chuang CF, Nelson SJ. Assessing tumor response in GBM following concurrent radiation and chemotherapy by means of novel MR based imaging methods characterizing metabolic and physiologic changes. In Proceedings of the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology 47th Annual Meeting; 2005 (Oct 1: S66–7).Google Scholar
- 22.Ross BD1, Moffat BA, Lawrence TS, Mukherji SK, Gebarski SS, Quint DJ, Johnson TD, Junck L, Robertson PL, Muraszko KM, Dong Q, Meyer CR, Bland PH, McConville P, Geng H, Rehemtulla A, Chenevert TL. Evaluation of cancer therapy using diffusion magnetic resonance imaging. Mol Cancer Ther. 2003;2:581–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y, Matsui M, Ida M, Fujiwara S, Shibata E; Acute Stroke Imaging Standardization Group-Japan (ASIST-Japan) Investigators. Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology. 2008;249(2):624–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 28.Pope WB1, Kim HJ, Huo J, Alger J, Brown MS, Gjertson D, Sai V, Young JR, Tekchandani L, Cloughesy T, Mischel PS, Lai A, Nghiemphu P, Rahmanuddin S, Goldin J. Recurrent glioblastoma multiforme: ADC histogram analysis predicts response to bevacizumab treatment. Radiology. 2009 Jul;252(1):182-9.Google Scholar