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

• Min J
• Park M
• Choi JW
• Jahng GH
• Moon WJ

• KMID: 2413707
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.4.777

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

14. Villemagne VL, Kim SY, Rowe CC, Iwatsubo T. Imago mundi, imago AD, imago ADNI. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2014; 6:62. PMID: 25478022.

15. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002; 17:143–155. PMID: 12391568.

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.

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.

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.

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.