| Verf.angabe: | Christopher L. Schlett, MD, MPH, Thomas Hendel, PhD, Jochen Hirsch, PhD, Sabine Weckbach, MD, Svenja Caspers, MD, Jeanette Schulz-Menger, MD, Till Ittermann, MD, Florian von Knobelsdorff-Brenkenhoff, MD, Susanne C. Ladd, MD, Susanne Moebus, PhD, MPH, Christian Stroszczynski, MD, Beate Fischer, PhD, Michael Leitzmann, MD, MPH, PhD, Christiane Kuhl, MD, Frank Pessler, MD, Dagmar Hartung, MD, Yvonne Kemmling, MD, Holger Hetterich, MD, Katrin Amunts, MD, Matthias Günther, PhD, Frank Wacker, MD, Ernst Rummeny, MD, Hans-Ulrich Kauczor, MD, Michael Forsting, MD, Henry Völzke, MD, Norbert Hosten, MD, Maximilian F. Reiser, MD, and Fabian Bamberg, MD, MPH |
|---|
| Abstract: | Introduction Whole-body magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is increasingly implemented in population-based cohorts and clinical settings. However, to quantify the variability introduced by the different scanners is essential to make conclusions about clinical and biological data, and relevant for internal/external validity. Thus, we determined the interscanner and intrascanner variability of different 3 T MR scanners for whole-body imaging. - Methods Thirty volunteers were enrolled to undergo multicentric, interscanner as well intrascanner imaging as part of the German National Cohort pilot studies. A comprehensive whole-body MR protocol was installed at 9 sites including 7 different MR scanner models by all 4 major vendors. A set of quantitative, organ-specific measures (n = 20; eg, volume of brain's gray/white matter, pulmonary trunk diameter, vertebral body height) were obtained in blinded fashion. Reproducibility was determined using mean weighted relative differences and intraclass correlation coefficients. - Results All participants (44 ± 14 years, 50% female) successfully completed the imaging protocol except for two because of technical issues. Mean scan time was 2 hours and 32 minutes and differed significantly across scanners (range, 1 hour 59 minutes to 3 hours 12 minutes). A higher reproducibility of obtained measurements was observed for intrascanner than for interscanner comparisons (intraclass correlation coefficients, 0.80 ± 0.17 vs 0.60 ± 0.31, P = 0.005, respectively). In the interscanner comparison, mean relative difference ranged from 1.0% to 53.2%. Conversely, in the intrascanner comparison, mean relative difference ranged from 0.1% to 15.6%. There were no statistical differences for intrascanner and interscanner reproducibility between the different organ foci (all P ≥ 0.24). - Conclusions While whole-body MR imaging-derived, organ-specific parameters are generally associated with good to excellent reproducibility, smaller differences are obtained when using identical MR scanner models by a single vendor. |
|---|
Online-Ressource
