Korean J Radiol.  2018 Aug;19(4):777-782. 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.777.

Inter-Vendor and Inter-Session Reliability of Diffusion Tensor Imaging: Implications for Multicenter Clinical Imaging Studies

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Radiology, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul 05030, Korea. mdmoonwj@kuh.ac.kr
  • 2Department of Radiology, Kyunghee University, Seoul 05278, Korea.

Abstract


OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the inter-vendor and inter-session reliability of diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) and relevant parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This prospective study included 10 healthy subjects (5 women and 5 men; age range, 25-33 years). Each subject was scanned twice using 3T magnetic resonance scanners from three different vendors at two different sites. A voxel-wise statistical analysis of diffusion data was performed using Tract-Based Spatial Statistics. Fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and radial diffusivity (RD) values were calculated for each brain voxel using FMRIB's Diffusion Toolbox.
RESULTS
A repeated measures analysis of variance revealed that there were no significant differences in FA values across the vendors or between sessions; however, there were significant differences in MD values between the vendors (p = 0.020). Although there were no significant differences in inter-session MD and inter-session/inter-vendor RD values, a significant group × factor interaction revealed differences in MD and RD values between the 1st and 2nd sessions conducted by the vendors (p = 0.004 and 0.006, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Although FA values exhibited good inter-vendor and inter-session reliability, MD and RD values did not show consistent results. Researchers using DTI should be aware of these limitations, especially when implementing DTI in multicenter studies.

Keyword

Brain; Diffusion tensor imaging; Magnetic resonance; Reliability; Reproducibility

MeSH Terms

Anisotropy
Brain
Commerce
Diffusion Tensor Imaging*
Diffusion*
Female
Healthy Volunteers
Humans
Male
Prospective Studies

Figure

  • Fig. 1 Box-and-whisker plot of FA values across different vendors.FA does not significantly vary across vendors (p = 0.108) or between sessions (p = 0.401) in repeated measures analysis of variance, but with tendency of higher value for Philips scanner. FA is unitless. FA = fractional anisotropy

  • Fig. 2 FA skeleton image showing higher FA in left hemisphere using Philips versus GE 3T scanner (Triple t test, FDR-corrected p < 0.05).FDR = false discovery rate

  • Fig. 3 FA skeleton image showing higher bilateral FA using Philips versus Siemens 3T scanner (Triple t test, FDR-corrected p < 0.05).

  • Fig. 4 Box-and-whisker plot of MD values across different vendors.MD varies significantly across vendors (p = 0.020), but not between sessions (p = 0.261). Unit of MD is mm2/sec. MD = mean diffusivity

  • Fig. 5 Box-and-whisker plot of RD across different vendors.Although RD does not significantly vary across vendors (p = 0.269) or between sessions (p = 0.559), measured differences between 1st and 2nd sessions depend on vendor (p = 0.006). Unit of RD is mm2/sec. RD = radial diffusivity


Cited by  1 articles

Thyroid-Associated Orbitopathy: Evaluating Microstructural Changes of Extraocular Muscles and Optic Nerves Using Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Imaging-Based Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Huan-Huan Chen, Hao Hu, Wen Chen, Dai Cui, Xiao-Quan Xu, Fei-Yun Wu, Tao Yang
Korean J Radiol. 2020;21(3):332-340.    doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0053.


Reference

1. Oppenheim C, Rodrigo S, Poupon C, Dumas de la Roque A, Naggara O, Meder JF, et al. [Diffusion tensor MR imaging of the brain. Clinical applications]. J Radiol. 2004; 85:287–296. PMID: 15192520.
2. Minati L, Grisoli M, Bruzzone MG. MR spectroscopy, functional MRI, and diffusion-tensor imaging in the aging brain: a conceptual review. J Geriatr Psychiatry Neurol. 2007; 20:3–21. PMID: 17341766.
Article
3. Nucifora PG, Verma R, Lee SK, Melhem ER. Diffusion-tensor MR imaging and tractography: exploring brain microstructure and connectivity. Radiology. 2007; 245:367–384. PMID: 17940300.
Article
4. Jovicich J, Marizzoni M, Bosch B, Bartrés-Faz D, Arnold J, Benninghoff J, et al. Multisite longitudinal reliability of tract-based spatial statistics in diffusion tensor imaging of healthy elderly subjects. Neuroimage. 2014; 101:390–403. PMID: 25026156.
Article
5. Laganà M, Rovaris M, Ceccarelli A, Venturelli C, Marini S, Baselli G. DTI parameter optimisation for acquisition at 1.5T: SNR analysis and clinical application. Comput Intell Neurosci. 2010; 254032. PMID: 20069121.
Article
6. Teipel SJ, Reuter S, Stieltjes B, Acosta-Cabronero J, Ernemann U, Fellgiebel A, et al. Multicenter stability of diffusion tensor imaging measures: a European clinical and physical phantom study. Psychiatry Res. 2011; 194:363–371. PMID: 22078796.
Article
7. Grech-Sollars M, Hales PW, Miyazaki K, Raschke F, Rodriguez D, Wilson M, et al. Multi-centre reproducibility of diffusion MRI parameters for clinical sequences in the brain. NMR Biomed. 2015; 28:468–485. PMID: 25802212.
8. Vollmar C, O'Muircheartaigh J, Barker GJ, Symms MR, Thompson P, Kumari V, et al. Identical, but not the same: intra-site and inter-site reproducibility of fractional anisotropy measures on two 3.0T scanners. Neuroimage. 2010; 51:1384–1394. PMID: 20338248.
Article
9. Tofts PS, Collins DJ. Multicentre imaging measurements for oncology and in the brain. Br J Radiol. 2011; 84(Spec No 2):S213–S226. PMID: 22433831.
Article
10. Kamagata K, Shimoji K, Hori M, Nishikori A, Tsuruta K, Yoshida M, et al. Intersite reliability of diffusion tensor imaging on two 3T scanners. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2015; 14:227–233. PMID: 25740241.
Article
11. Pagani E, Hirsch JG, Pouwels PJ, Horsfield MA, Perego E, Gass A, et al. Intercenter differences in diffusion tensor MRI acquisition. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010; 31:1458–1468. PMID: 20512899.
Article
12. Fox RJ, Sakaie K, Lee JC, Debbins JP, Liu Y, Arnold DL, et al. A validation study of multicenter diffusion tensor imaging: reliability of fractional anisotropy and diffusivity values. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2012; 33:695–700. PMID: 22173748.
Article
13. Magnotta VA, Matsui JT, Liu D, Johnson HJ, Long JD, Bolster BD Jr, et al. Multicenter reliability of diffusion tensor imaging. Brain Connect. 2012; 2:345–355. PMID: 23075313.
Article
14. Villemagne VL, Kim SY, Rowe CC, Iwatsubo T. Imago mundi, imago AD, imago ADNI. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2014; 6:62. PMID: 25478022.
Article
15. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002; 17:143–155. PMID: 12391568.
Article
16. Behrens TE, Woolrich MW, Jenkinson M, Johansen-Berg H, Nunes RG, Clare S, et al. Characterization and propagation of uncertainty in diffusion-weighted MR imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2003; 50:1077–1088. PMID: 14587019.
Article
17. Jones RG, Payne RB. Clinical investigation and statistics in laboratory medicine. London: ACB Venture Publications;1997.
18. Anderson AW. Theoretical analysis of the effects of noise on diffusion tensor imaging. Magn Reson Med. 2001; 46:1174–1188. PMID: 11746585.
Article
19. Smith SM, Jenkinson M, Johansen-Berg H, Rueckert D, Nichols TE, Mackay CE, et al. Tract-based spatial statistics: voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data. Neuroimage. 2006; 31:1487–1505. PMID: 16624579.
Article
20. Smith SM, Johansen-Berg H, Jenkinson M, Rueckert D, Nichols TE, Miller KL, et al. Acquisition and voxelwise analysis of multi-subject diffusion data with tract-based spatial statistics. Nat Protoc. 2007; 2:499–503. PMID: 17406613.
Article
Full Text Links
  • KJR
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr