Empirical validation of gradient field models for an accurate ADC measured on clinical 3T MR systems in body oncologic applications

A Review on the Use of Imaging Biomarkers in Oncology Clinical Trials: Quality Assurance Strategies for Technical Validation

Imaging biomarkers (IBs) have been proposed in medical literature that exploit images in a quantitative way, going beyond the visual assessment by an imaging physician. These IBs can be used in the diagnosis, prognosis, and response assessment of several pathologies and are very often used for patient management pathways. In this respect, IBs to be used in clinical practice and clinical trials have a requirement to be precise, accurate, and reproducible. Due to limitations in imaging technology, an error can be associated with their value when considering the entire imaging chain, from data acquisition to data reconstruction and subsequent analysis. From this point of view, the use of IBs in clinical trials requires a broadening of the concept of quality assurance and this can be a challenge for the responsible medical physics experts (MPEs). Within this manuscript, we describe the concept of an IB, examine some examples of IBs currently employed in clinical practice/clinical trials and analyze the procedure that should be carried out to achieve better accuracy and reproducibility in their use. We anticipate that this narrative review, written by the components of the EFOMP working group on "the role of the MPEs in clinical trials"-imaging sub-group, can represent a valid reference material for MPEs approaching the subject.

Tuning the optimal diffusion-weighted MRI parameters on a 0.35-T MR-Linac for clinical implementation: A phantom study

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess the quality of a new diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequence implemented on an MR-Linac MRIdian system, evaluating and optimizing the acquisition parameters to explore the possibility of clinically implementing a DWI acquisition protocol in a 0.35-T MR-Linac.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All the performed analyses have been carried out on two types of phantoms: a homogeneous 24-cm diameter polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) sphere (SP) and a homemade phantom (HMP) constating in a PMMA cylinder filled with distilled water with empty sockets into which five cylindrical vials filled with five different concentrations of methylcellulose water solutions have been inserted. SP was used to evaluate the dependence of diffusion gradient inhomogeneity artifacts on gantry position. Four diffusion sequences with b-values of 500 s/mm2 and 3 averages have been acquired: three with diffusion gradients in the three main directions (phase direction, read direction, slice direction) and one with the diffusion gradients switched off. The dependence of diffusion image uniformity and SNR on the number of averages in the MR sequences was also investigated to determine the optimal number of averages. Finally, the ADC values of HMP have been computed and then compared between images acquired in the scanners at 0.35 and 1.5 T.

RESULTS

In order to acquire high-quality artifact-free DWI images, the "slice" gradient direction has been identified to be the optimal one and 0° to be the best gradient angle. Both the SNR ratio and the uniformity increase with the number of averages. A threshold value of 80 for SNR and 85% for uniformity was adopted to choose the best number of averages. By making a compromise between time and quality and limiting the number of b-values, it is possible to reduce the acquisition time to 78 s. The Passing-Bablok test showed that the two methods, with 0.35 and 1.5 T scanners, led to similar results.

CONCLUSION

The quality of the DWI has been accurately evaluated in relation to different sequence parameters, and optimal parameters have been identified to select a clinical protocol for the acquisition of ADC maps sustainable in the workflow of a hybrid radiotherapy system with a 0.35-T MRI scanner.

Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Abdomen: Correction for Gradient Nonlinearity Bias in Apparent Diffusion Coefficient

BACKGROUND

Gradient nonlinearity (GNL) introduces spatial nonuniformity bias in apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements, especially at large offsets from the magnet isocenter.

PURPOSE

To investigate the effects of GNL in abdominal ADC measurements and to develop an ADC bias correction procedure.

STUDY TYPE

Retrospective.

PHANTOM/POPULATION

Two homemade ultrapure water phantoms/25 patients with histologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE

A 3.0 T/diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) with single-shot echo-planar imaging sequence.

ASSESSMENT

ADC bias was computed in the three orthogonal directions at different offset locations. The spatial-dependent correctors of ADC bias were generated from the ADCs of phantom 1. The ADCs were estimated before and after corrections for the phantom 1 with both the proposed approach and the theoretical GNL correction method. For the patients, ADCs were measured in abdominal tissues including left and right liver lobes, PDAC, spleen, bilateral kidneys, and bilateral paraspinal muscles.

STATISTICAL TEST

Friedman tests and Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

The ADC bias measured by phantom 1 was 9.7% and 12.6% higher in the right-left and anterior-posterior directions and 9.2% lower in the superior-inferior direction at the 150 mm offsets from the magnetic isocenter. The corrected vs. the uncorrected ADCs measurements (median: 2.20 × 10^-3  mm² /sec for both the proposed method and the theoretical GNL method vs. 2.31 × 10^-3  mm² /sec, respectively) and their relative ADC errors (0.014, 0.016, and 0.054, respectively) were lower in the phantom 1. The relative ADC errors substantially decreased after correction in the phantom 2 (median: 0.048 and -0.008, respectively). The ADCs of all the abdominal tissues were lower after correction except for the left liver lobes (P = 0.13).

DATA CONCLUSION

GNL bias in abdominal ADC can be measured by a DWI phantom. The proposed correction procedure was successfully applied for the bias correction in abdominal ADC.

EVIDENCE LEVEL

3.

TECHNICAL EFFICACY

Stage 1.

Long-Term Stability of Gradient Characteristics Warrants Model-Based Correction of Diffusion Weighting Bias

The study aims to test the long-term stability of gradient characteristics for model-based correction of diffusion weighting (DW) bias in an apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for multisite imaging trials. Single spin echo (SSE) DWI of a long-tube ice-water phantom was acquired quarterly on six MR scanners over two years for individual diffusion gradient channels, along with B0 mapping, as a function of right-left (RL) and superior-inferior (SI) offsets from the isocenter. Additional double spin-echo (DSE) DWI was performed on two systems. The offset dependences of derived ADC were fit to 4th-order polynomials. Chronic shim gradients were measured from spatial derivatives of B0 maps along the tube direction. Gradient nonlinearity (GNL) was modeled using vendor-provided gradient field descriptions. Deviations were quantified by root-mean-square differences (RMSD), normalized to reference ice-water ADC, between the model and reference (RMSDREF), measurement and model (RMSDEXP), and temporal measurement variations (RMSDTMP). Average RMSDREF was 4.9 ± 3.2 (%RL) and –14.8 ± 3.8 (%SI), and threefold larger than RMSDEXP. RMSDTMP was close to measurement errors (~3%). GNL-induced bias across gradient systems varied up to 20%, while deviation from the model accounted at most for 6.5%, and temporal variation for less than 3% of ADC reproducibility error. Higher SSE RMSDEXP = 7.5–11% was reduced to 2.5–4.8% by DSE, consistent with the eddy current origin. Measured chronic shim gradients below 0.1 mT/m had a minor contribution to ADC bias. The demonstrated long-term stability of spatial ADC profiles and consistency with system GNL models justifies retrospective and prospective DW bias correction based on system gradient design models. Residual errors due to eddy currents and shim gradients should be corrected independent of GNL.

Perfusion-Diffusion Ratio: A New IVIM Approach in Differentiating Solid Benign and Malignant Primary Lesions of the Liver

Introduction

In order to improve the efficacy of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters in characterising specific tissues, a new concept is introduced: the perfusion–diffusion ratio (PDR), which expresses the relationship between the signal S(b) decline rate as a result of IVIM and the rate of signal S(b) decline due to diffusion. The aim of this study was to investigate this novel approach in the differentiation of solid primary liver lesions. Material and Methods. Eighty-three patients referred for liver MRI between August 2017 and January 2020 with a suspected liver tumour were prospectively examined with the standard liver MRI protocol extended by DWI-IVIM sequence. Patients with no liver lesions, haemangiomas, or metastases were excluded. The final study population consisted of 34 patients with primary solid liver masses, 9 with FNH, 4 with regenerative nodules, 10 with HCC, and 11 with CCC. The PDR coefficient was introduced, defined as the ratio of the rate of signal S(b) decrease due to the IVIM effect to the rate of signal S(b) decrease due to the diffusion process, for b = 0.

Results

No significant differences were found between benign and malignant lesions in the case of IVIM parameters (f, D, or D^∗) and ADC. Significant differences were observed only for PDR, with lower values for malignant lesions (p = 0.03). The ROC analysis yielded an AUC value for PDR equal to 0.74, with a cut-off value of 5.06, sensitivity of 81%, specificity of 77%, and accuracy of 79%.

Conclusion

PDR proved to be more effective than IVIM parameters and ADC in the differentiation of solid benign and malignant primary liver lesions.

New developments in MRI: System characterization, technical advances and radiotherapy applications

A Special Issue of Physica Medica - European Journal of Medical Physics, focused on some important points of contact between the world of magnetic resonance and that of medical physics, was published during 2021. This Editorial describes and comments on the content of this Focus Issue, which contains articles from leading groups invited by the Guest Editors.