PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Wahid, Kareem A.
AU  - He, Renjie
AU  - McDonald, Brigid A.
AU  - Anderson, Brian M.
AU  - Salzillo, Travis
AU  - Mulder, Sam
AU  - Wang, Jarey
AU  - Sharafi, Christina Setareh
AU  - McCoy, Lance A.
AU  - Naser, Mohamed A.
AU  - Ahmed, Sara
AU  - Sanders, Keith L.
AU  - Mohamed, Abdallah S.R.
AU  - Ding, Yao
AU  - Wang, Jihong
AU  - Hutcheson, Kate
AU  - Lai, Stephen Y.
AU  - Fuller, Clifton D.
AU  - van Dijk, Lisanne V.
TI  - MRI Intensity Standardization Evaluation Design for Head and Neck Quantitative Imaging Applications
AID  - 10.1101/2021.02.24.21252322
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.02.24.21252322
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/26/2021.02.24.21252322.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/26/2021.02.24.21252322.full
AB  - Background Conventional MRI poses unique challenges in quantitative analysis due to a lack of specific physical meaning for voxel intensity values. In recent years, intensity standardization methods to optimize MRI signal consistency have been developed to address this problem. However, the effects of standardization methods on the head and neck region have not been previously investigated.Purpose This study proposes a workflow based on healthy tissue region of interest (ROI) analysis to determine intensity consistency within a patient cohort. Through this workflow, we systematically evaluate different intensity standardization methods for T2-weighted MRI of the head and neck region.Methods Two image cohorts of five head and neck cancer patients, one with heterogeneous acquisition parameters (median age 59 years [range, 53-61]), and another with homogeneous acquisition parameters from a clinical trial (NCT04265430) (median age 61 years [range, 54-77]) were retrospectively analyzed. The standard deviation of cohort-level normalized mean intensity (SD NMIc), a metric of intensity consistency, was calculated across ROIs to determine the effect of five intensity standardization methods on T2-weighted images. For each cohort, the Friedman test with a subsequent post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare SD NMIc among methods.Results Consistency (SD NMIc across ROIs) between T2-weighted images is substantially more impaired in the cohort with heterogeneous acquisition parameters (0.28 ± 0.04) than in the cohort with homogeneous acquisition parameters (0.15 ± 0.05). Consequently, intensity standardization methods more significantly improve consistency in the cohort with heterogeneous acquisition parameters (corrected p < 0.005 for all methods compared to no standardization) than in the cohort with homogeneous acquisition parameters (corrected p > 0.5 for all methods compared to no standardization).Conclusions Our findings stress the importance of image acquisition parameter standardization, together with the need for testing intensity consistency before performing quantitative analysis of MRI.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialNCT04265430Funding StatementThis work was supported by the Cancer Center Support Grant (P30-CA016672-44). K.A. Wahid and T. Salzillo are supported by training fellowships from The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Center for Clinical and Translational Sciences TL1 Program (TL1TR003169). R. He., A.S.R. Mohamed, K. Hutcheson, and S.Y. Lai are supported by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Award (R01DE025248). B.A. McDonald receives research support from the NIH NIDCR (F31DE029093) and the Dr. John J. Kopchick Fellowship through MD Anderson UTHealth Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences. B.M. Anderson receives funding from the Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Allied Scientist Grant and the Dr. John J Kopchick Fellowship. L.A. McCoy and K.L. Sanders are supported by NIH NIDCR Research Supplements to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research (R01DE025248-S02 and R01DE028290-S01 respectively). M.A. Naser and S. Ahmed are supported by a NIH NIDCR Award (R01 DE028290-01). C.D. Fuller received funding from an NIH NIDCR Award (1R01DE025248-01/R56DE025248) and Academic-Industrial Partnership Award (R01 DE028290), the National Science Foundation (NSF), Division of Mathematical Sciences, Joint NIH/NSF Initiative on Quantitative Approaches to Biomedical Big Data (QuBBD) Grant (NSF 1557679), the NIH Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) Program of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Early Stage Development of Technologies in Biomedical Computing, Informatics, and Big Data Science Award (1R01CA214825), the NCI Early Phase Clinical Trials in Imaging and Image-Guided Interventions Program (1R01CA218148), the NIH/NCI Cancer Center Support Grant (CCSG) Pilot Research Program Award from the UT MD Anderson CCSG Radiation Oncology and Cancer Imaging Program (P30CA016672), the NIH/NCI Head and Neck Specialized Programs of Research Excellence (SPORE) Developmental Research Program Award (P50 CA097007) and the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) Research Education Program (R25EB025787). He has received direct industry grant support, speaking honoraria and travel funding from Elekta AB. L.V. van Dijk received/receives funding and salary support from the Dutch organization NWO ZonMw during the period of study execution via the Rubicon Individual career development grant.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:All images were retrospectively collected from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center clinical databases from the dates of May 2016 to October 2018 in agreement with an institutional review board and HIPAA approved protocol designed to collect data from patients with multiple imaging acquisitions (RCR03-0800). The protocol included a waiver of informed consent.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe anonymized image sets analyzed during the current study are made publicly available online through Figshare (doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.13525481, under embargo until formal manuscript acceptance in scientific journal). https://figshare.com/account/projects/95960/articles/13525481