Display options
Cite
Sorace AG, Wu C, Barnes SL, et al. Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;doi: 10.1002/jmri.26011.
Sorace, A. G., Wu, C., Barnes, S. L., Jarrett, A. M., Avery, S., Patt, D., Goodgame, B., Luci, J. J., Kang, H., Abramson, R. G., Yankeelov, T. E., & Virostko, J. (2018). Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI, . https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26011
Sorace, Anna G, et al. "Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting." Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI vol. (2018). doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26011
Sorace AG, Wu C, Barnes SL, Jarrett AM, Avery S, Patt D, Goodgame B, Luci JJ, Kang H, Abramson RG, Yankeelov TE, Virostko J. Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Mar 23; doi: 10.1002/jmri.26011. Epub 2018 Mar 23. PMID: 29570895; PMCID: PMC6151298.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018 Mar 23; doi: 10.1002/jmri.26011. Epub 2018 Mar 23.

Repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of quantitative mri of the breast in the community radiology setting.

Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI

Anna G Sorace, Chengyue Wu, Stephanie L Barnes, Angela M Jarrett, Sarah Avery, Debra Patt, Boone Goodgame, Jeffery J Luci, Hakmook Kang, Richard G Abramson, Thomas E Yankeelov, John Virostko

Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
  2. Livestrong Cancer Institutes, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
  3. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
  4. Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
  5. Austin Radiological Association, Austin, Texas, USA.
  6. Texas Oncology, Austin, Texas, USA.
  7. Seton Hospital, Austin, Texas, USA.
  8. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
  9. Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.
  10. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
  11. Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.

PMID: 29570895 PMCID: PMC6151298 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26011

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Quantitative diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) have the potential to impact patient care by providing noninvasive biological information in breast cancer.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: To quantify the repeatability, reproducibility, and accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and T

STUDY TYPE: Prospective.

SUBJECTS/PHANTOM: Ice-water DW-MRI and T

FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3T Siemens Skyra MRI quantitative DW-MRI and T

ASSESSMENT: Quantitative DW-MRI and T

STATISTICAL TESTS: Average values of breast tissue were quantified and Bland-Altman analysis was performed to assess the repeatability of the MRI techniques, while the Friedman test assessed reproducibility.

RESULTS: ADC measurements were reproducible across sites, with an average difference of 1.6% in an ice-water phantom and 7.0% in breast fibroglandular tissue. T

DATA CONCLUSION: Community radiology practices can perform repeatable, reproducible, and accurate quantitative T

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018.

© 2018 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.

Keywords: T1-mapping; breast cancer; diffusion-weighted MRI; dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

References

  1. PLoS Biol. 2015 Apr 22;13(4):e1002128 - PubMed
  2. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016 May;157(1):31-40 - PubMed
  3. Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Apr;32(3):245-9 - PubMed
  4. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 Jul;18(7):1993-9 - PubMed
  5. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011 Oct;34(4):983-7 - PubMed
  6. Stat Methods Med Res. 1999 Jun;8(2):135-60 - PubMed
  7. Transl Oncol. 2016 Feb;9(1):8-17 - PubMed
  8. Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Jan;25(1):1-13 - PubMed
  9. Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 Jan;31(1):1-9 - PubMed
  10. Clin Cancer Res. 2016 Jan 15;22(2):284-90 - PubMed
  11. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Nov;207(5):1159-1166 - PubMed
  12. Tomography. 2016 Dec;2(4):260-266 - PubMed
  13. NMR Biomed. 2014 Sep;27(9):1030-6 - PubMed
  14. Acad Radiol. 2015 Mar;22(3):363-9 - PubMed
  15. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013 May;37(5):1238-46 - PubMed
  16. JAMA. 2001 Jan 10;285(2):171-6 - PubMed
  17. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2012 Oct;2012(4):139-154 - PubMed
  18. Neoplasia. 2009 Feb;11(2):102-25 - PubMed
  19. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2006 Jan;23(1):87-91 - PubMed
  20. Magn Reson Med. 2013 Jul;70(1):216-24 - PubMed
  21. J Oncol Pract. 2013 Jan;9(1):9-19 - PubMed
  22. Radiology. 2012 Apr;263(1):53-63 - PubMed
  23. PLoS One. 2015 Mar 27;10(3):e0122151 - PubMed
  24. Acad Radiol. 2015 Jan;22(1):33-49 - PubMed
  25. Nat Clin Pract Oncol. 2008 Apr;5(4):220-33 - PubMed
  26. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001 Jul-Aug;25(4):515-9 - PubMed
  27. Transl Oncol. 2014 Feb 01;7(1):130-7 - PubMed
  28. J Digit Imaging. 2004 Dec;17(4):279-84 - PubMed
  29. Magn Reson Med. 2018 May;79(5):2564-2575 - PubMed
  30. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012 Aug;135(1):17-28 - PubMed
  31. NMR Biomed. 2009 Jan;22(1):104-13 - PubMed
  32. Invest Radiol. 2015 Apr;50(4):195-204 - PubMed
  33. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2016 Feb;24(1):11-29 - PubMed
  34. Tomography. 2016 Dec;2(4):250-259 - PubMed
  35. Radiology. 1990 Nov;177(2):401-5 - PubMed
  36. Radiology. 2011 Nov;261(2):394-403 - PubMed
  37. Eur J Radiol. 2015 Sep;84(9):1729-36 - PubMed

Publication Types

Grant support