272
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A medical device-grade T1 and ECV phantom for global T1 mapping quality assurance—the T 1 Mapping and ECV Standardization in cardiovascular magnetic resonance (T1MES) program

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          T 1 mapping and extracellular volume (ECV) have the potential to guide patient care and serve as surrogate end-points in clinical trials, but measurements differ between cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) scanners and pulse sequences. To help deliver T 1 mapping to global clinical care, we developed a phantom-based quality assurance (QA) system for verification of measurement stability over time at individual sites, with further aims of generalization of results across sites, vendor systems, software versions and imaging sequences. We thus created T1MES: The T1 Mapping and ECV Standardization Program.

          Methods

          A design collaboration consisting of a specialist MRI small-medium enterprise, clinicians, physicists and national metrology institutes was formed. A phantom was designed covering clinically relevant ranges of T 1 and T 2 in blood and myocardium, pre and post-contrast, for 1.5 T and 3 T. Reproducible mass manufacture was established. The device received regulatory clearance by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Conformité Européene (CE) marking.

          Results

          The T1MES phantom is an agarose gel-based phantom using nickel chloride as the paramagnetic relaxation modifier. It was reproducibly specified and mass-produced with a rigorously repeatable process. Each phantom contains nine differently-doped agarose gel tubes embedded in a gel/beads matrix. Phantoms were free of air bubbles and susceptibility artifacts at both field strengths and T 1 maps were free from off-resonance artifacts. The incorporation of high-density polyethylene beads in the main gel fill was effective at flattening the B 1 field. T 1 and T 2 values measured in T1MES showed coefficients of variation of 1 % or less between repeat scans indicating good short-term reproducibility. Temperature dependency experiments confirmed that over the range 15–30 °C the short-T 1 tubes were more stable with temperature than the long-T 1 tubes. A batch of 69 phantoms was mass-produced with random sampling of ten of these showing coefficients of variations for T 1 of 0.64 ± 0.45 % and 0.49 ± 0.34 % at 1.5 T and 3 T respectively.

          Conclusion

          The T1MES program has developed a T 1 mapping phantom to CE/FDA manufacturing standards. An initial 69 phantoms with a multi-vendor user manual are now being scanned fortnightly in centers worldwide. Future results will explore T 1 mapping sequences, platform performance, stability and the potential for standardization.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12968-016-0280-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Robust water/fat separation in the presence of large field inhomogeneities using a graph cut algorithm.

          Water/fat separation is a classical problem for in vivo proton MRI. Although many methods have been proposed to address this problem, robust water/fat separation remains a challenge, especially in the presence of large amplitude of static field inhomogeneities. This problem is challenging because of the nonuniqueness of the solution for an isolated voxel. This paper tackles the problem using a statistically motivated formulation that jointly estimates the complete field map and the entire water/fat images. This formulation results in a difficult optimization problem that is solved effectively using a novel graph cut algorithm, based on an iterative process where all voxels are updated simultaneously. The proposed method has good theoretical properties, as well as an efficient implementation. Simulations and in vivo results are shown to highlight the properties of the proposed method and compare it to previous approaches. Twenty-five cardiac datasets acquired on a short, wide-bore scanner with different slice orientations were used to test the proposed method, which produced robust water/fat separation for these challenging datasets. This paper also shows example applications of the proposed method, such as the characterization of intramyocardial fat. Copyright (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Modified look-locker inversion recovery T1 mapping indices: assessment of accuracy and reproducibility between magnetic resonance scanners

            Background Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) T1 mapping indices, such as T1 time and partition coefficient (λ), have shown potential to assess diffuse myocardial fibrosis. The purpose of this study was to investigate how scanner and field strength variation affect the accuracy and precision/reproducibility of T1 mapping indices. Methods CMR studies were performed on two 1.5T and three 3T scanners. Eight phantoms were made to mimic the T1/T2 of pre- and post-contrast myocardium and blood at 1.5T and 3T. T1 mapping using MOLLI was performed with simulated heart rate of 40-100 bpm. Inversion recovery spin echo (IR-SE) was the reference standard for T1 determination. Accuracy was defined as the percent error between MOLLI and IR-SE, and scan/re-scan reproducibility was defined as the relative percent mean difference between repeat MOLLI scans. Partition coefficient was estimated by ΔR1myocardium phantom/ΔR1blood phantom. Generalized linear mixed model was used to compare the accuracy and precision/reproducibility of T1 and λ across field strength, scanners, and protocols. Results Field strength significantly affected MOLLI T1 accuracy (6.3% error for 1.5T vs. 10.8% error for 3T, p<0.001) but not λ accuracy (8.8% error for 1.5T vs. 8.0% error for 3T, p=0.11). Partition coefficients of MOLLI were not different between two 1.5T scanners (47.2% vs. 47.9%, p=0.13), and showed only slight variation across three 3T scanners (49.2% vs. 49.8% vs. 49.9%, p=0.016). Partition coefficient also had significantly lower percent error for precision (better scan/re-scan reproducibility) than measurement of individual T1 values (3.6% for λ vs. 4.3%-4.8% for T1 values, approximately, for pre/post blood and myocardium values). Conclusion Based on phantom studies, T1 errors using MOLLI ranged from 6-14% across various MR scanners while errors for partition coefficient were less (6-10%). Compared with absolute T1 times, partition coefficient showed less variability across platforms and field strengths as well as higher precision.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An MRI phantom material for quantitative relaxometry.

              Most phantom media in current use exhibit T1 relaxation times that are significantly dependent on both temperature and operating frequency. This can introduce undesirable variability into relaxation measurements due to temperature fluctuations, and complicates direct comparison of imagers operating at different magnetic field strengths. Our investigations of a nickel-doped agarose gel system have demonstrated near independence of the proton relaxation rates to a wide range of temperatures and frequencies. We therefore propose the adoption of Ni2+ as a relaxation modifier for phantom materials used as relaxometry standards.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +44 07809621264 , gabriella.captur.11@ucl.ac.uk
                p.gatehouse@rbht.nhs.uk
                kathryn.keenan@nist.gov
                friso_heslinga@live.nl
                ruediger.bruehl@ptb.de
                marcel.prothmann@charite.de
                mjg40@cam.ac.uk
                richard.eames13@imperial.ac.uk
                camilla.torlasco@gmail.com
                benedetti.giulia@hsr.it
                j.donovan@rbht.nhs.uk
                bernd.ittermann@ptb.de
                r.boubertakh@qmul.ac.uk
                akbathgate@iinet.com.au
                celiner@resonancehealth.com
                wenjiep@resonancehealth.com
                rnezafat@bidmc.harvard.edu
                MS5PC@hscmail.mcc.virginia.edu
                kellmanp@nhlbi.nih.gov
                +44 2034563081 , j.moon@ucl.ac.uk
                Journal
                J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
                J Cardiovasc Magn Reson
                Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance
                BioMed Central (London )
                1097-6647
                1532-429X
                22 September 2016
                22 September 2016
                2016
                : 18
                : 58
                Affiliations
                [1 ]UCL Biological Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, Institute of Child Health and Great Ormond Street Hospital, 30 Guilford Street, London, UK
                [2 ]NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Center, Maple House Suite, Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7DN UK
                [3 ]Barts Heart Center, St Bartholomew’s Hospital, West Smithfield, London, EC1A 7BE UK
                [4 ]CMR Department, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London, SW3 6NP UK
                [5 ]National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), Boulder, MS 818.03, 325 Broadway, Boulder, CO 80305-3337 USA
                [6 ]Biomagnetics Group, School of Physics, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA 6009 Australia
                [7 ]NeuroImaging group, MIRA Institute for Biomedical Technology and Technical Medicine, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, Netherlands
                [8 ]Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), Abbestr. 2 – 12, D-10587, Berlin, Germany
                [9 ]Cardiology, Charité, Medical Faculty of Humboldt-University Berlin ECRC and HELIOS Clinics, Berlin, Germany
                [10 ]Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK
                [11 ]Department of Physics, Imperial College London, Prince Consort Rd, London, SW7 2BB UK
                [12 ]University of Milan-Bicocca, Piazza dell’Ateneo Nuovo 1, 20100 Milan, Italy
                [13 ]San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina 60, 20132 Milan, Italy
                [14 ]Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London, SW3 6NP UK
                [15 ]Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [16 ]Resonance Health, 278 Stirling Highway, Claremont, WA 6010 Australia
                [17 ]Department of Medicine (Cardiovascular Division) Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Cardiology East Campus, Room E/SH455, 330 Brookline Ave, Boston, MA 02215 USA
                [18 ]University of Virginia Health System, 1215 Lee St, PO Box 800158, Charlottesville, VA 22908 USA
                [19 ]National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Drive, Building 10, Room B1D416, MSC1061, Bethesda, MD 20892-1061 USA
                [20 ]UCL Institute of Cardiovascular Science, University College London, Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT UK
                Article
                280
                10.1186/s12968-016-0280-z
                5034411
                27660042
                810a311c-fc70-40cb-8512-83feaec60076
                © The Author(s). 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 30 March 2016
                : 2 September 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: EACVI
                Award ID: Imaging Research Grant
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272, National Institute for Health Research;
                Award ID: #BRC/199/JM/101320
                Award ID: Rare Diseases Translational Research Collaboration
                Award ID: BRC award to Cambridge University Hospitals
                Award ID: NIHR Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit support at Royal Brompton Hospital London UK
                Award ID: UCL Hospitals NIHR BRC and Biomedical Research Unit at Barts Hospital
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Barts Charity
                Award ID: (#1107/2356/MRC0140
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Cardiovascular Medicine
                t1 mapping,standardization,phantom
                Cardiovascular Medicine
                t1 mapping, standardization, phantom

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content108

                Cited by55

                Most referenced authors339