E-viri
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
-
Bane, Octavia; Hectors, Stefanie J.; Wagner, Mathilde; Arlinghaus, Lori L.; Aryal, Madhava P.; Cao, Yue; Chenevert, Thomas L.; Fennessy, Fiona; Huang, Wei; Hylton, Nola M.; Kalpathy‐Cramer, Jayashree; Keenan, Kathryn E.; Malyarenko, Dariya I.; Mulkern, Robert V.; Newitt, David C.; Russek, Stephen E.; Stupic, Karl F.; Tudorica, Alina; Wilmes, Lisa J.; Yankeelov, Thomas E.; Yen, Yi‐Fei; Boss, Michael A.; Taouli, Bachir
Magnetic resonance in medicine, 20/May , Letnik: 79, Številka: 5Journal Article
Purpose To determine the in vitro accuracy, test‐retest repeatability, and interplatform reproducibility of T1 quantification protocols used for dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. Methods A T1 phantom with 14 samples was imaged at eight centers with a common inversion‐recovery spin‐echo (IR‐SE) protocol and a variable flip angle (VFA) protocol using seven flip angles, as well as site‐specific protocols (VFA with different flip angles, variable repetition time, proton density, and Look‐Locker inversion recovery). Factors influencing the accuracy (deviation from reference NMR T1 measurements) and repeatability were assessed using general linear mixed models. Interplatform reproducibility was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results For the common IR‐SE protocol, accuracy (median error across platforms = 1.4–5.5%) was influenced predominantly by T1 sample (P < 10−6), whereas test‐retest repeatability (median error = 0.2–8.3%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 10−6). For the common VFA protocol, accuracy (median error = 5.7–32.2%) was influenced by field strength (P = 0.006), whereas repeatability (median error = 0.7–25.8%) was influenced by the scanner (P < 0.0001). Interplatform reproducibility with the common VFA was lower at 3 T than 1.5 T (P = 0.004), and lower than that of the common IR‐SE protocol (coefficient of variation 1.5T: VFA/IR‐SE = 11.13%/8.21%, P = 0.028; 3 T: VFA/IR‐SE = 22.87%/5.46%, P = 0.001). Among the site‐specific protocols, Look‐Locker inversion recovery and VFA (2–3 flip angles) protocols showed the best accuracy and repeatability (errors < 15%). Conclusions The VFA protocols with 2 to 3 flip angles optimized for different applications achieved acceptable balance of extensive spatial coverage, accuracy, and repeatability in T1 quantification (errors < 15%). Further optimization in terms of flip‐angle choice for each tissue application, and the use of B1 correction, are needed to improve the robustness of VFA protocols for T1 mapping. Magn Reson Med 79:2564–2575, 2018. © 2017 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Avtor
![loading ... loading ...](themes/default/img/ajax-loading.gif)
Vnos na polico
Trajna povezava
- URL:
Faktor vpliva
Dostop do baze podatkov JCR je dovoljen samo uporabnikom iz Slovenije. Vaš trenutni IP-naslov ni na seznamu dovoljenih za dostop, zato je potrebna avtentikacija z ustreznim računom AAI.
Leto | Faktor vpliva | Izdaja | Kategorija | Razvrstitev | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP | JCR | SNIP |
Baze podatkov, v katerih je revija indeksirana
Ime baze podatkov | Področje | Leto |
---|
Povezave do osebnih bibliografij avtorjev | Povezave do podatkov o raziskovalcih v sistemu SICRIS |
---|
Vir: Osebne bibliografije
in: SICRIS
To gradivo vam je dostopno v celotnem besedilu. Če kljub temu želite naročiti gradivo, kliknite gumb Nadaljuj.