Quality assurance multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging.

PURPOSE: To propose a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) quality assurance procedure that can be used for multicenter comparison of different MR scanners for quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-six centers (35 MR scanners with field strengths: 1T, 1.5T, and 3T) were enrolled in the study. Two different DWI acquisition series (b-value ranges 0-1000 and 0-3000 s/mm(2) , respectively) were performed for each MR scanner. All DWI acquisitions were performed by using a cylindrical doped water phantom. Mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values as well as ADC values along each of the three main orthogonal directions of the diffusion gradients (x, y, and z) were calculated. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was evaluated for 26 MR scanners. RESULTS: A good agreement was found between the nominal and measured mean ADC over all the centers. More than 80% of mean ADC measurements were within 5% from the nominal value, and the highest deviation and overall standard deviation were 9.3% and 3.5%, respectively. Short-term repeatability of ADC measurement was found <2.5% for all MR scanners. CONCLUSION: A specific and widely accepted protocol for quality controls in DWI is still lacking. The DWI quality assurance protocol proposed in this study can be applied in order to assess the reliability of DWI-derived indices before tackling single- as well as multicenter studies.

Results of an independent dosimetry audit for scanned proton beam therapy facilities.

PURPOSE: An independent dosimetry audit based on end-to-end testing of the entire chain of radiation therapy delivery is highly recommended to ensure consistent treatments among proton therapy centers. This study presents an auditing methodology developed by the MedAustron Ion Beam Therapy Center (Austria) in collaboration with the National Physical Laboratory (UK) and audit results for five scanned proton beam therapy facilities in Europe. METHODS: The audit procedure used a homogeneous and an anthropomorphic head phantom. The phantoms were loaded either with an ionization chamber or with alanine pellets and radiochromic films. Homogeneously planned doses of 10Gy were delivered to a box-like target volume in the homogeneous phantom and to two clinical scenarios with increasing complexity in the head phantom. RESULTS: For all tests the mean of the local differences of the absolute dose to water determined with the alanine pellets compared to the predicted dose from the treatment planning system installed at the audited institution was determined. The mean value taken over all tests performed was -0.1±1.0%. The measurements carried out with the ionization chamber were consistent with the dose determined by the alanine pellets with a mean deviation of -0.5±0.6%. CONCLUSION: The developed dosimetry audit method was successfully applied at five proton centers including various "turn-key" Cyclotron solutions by IBA, Varian and Mevion. This independent audit with extension to other tumour sites and use of the correspondent anthropomorphic phantoms may be proposed as part of a credentialing procedure for future clinical trials in proton beam therapy.