Repeat it without me: Crowdsourcing the T1 mapping common ground via the ISMRM reproducibility challenge.

PURPOSE: T1 mapping is a widely used quantitative MRI technique, but its tissue-specific values remain inconsistent across protocols, sites, and vendors. The ISMRM Reproducible Research and Quantitative MR study groups jointly launched a challenge to assess the reproducibility of a well-established inversion-recovery T1 mapping technique, using acquisition details from a seminal T1 mapping paper on a standardized phantom and in human brains. METHODS: The challenge used the acquisition protocol from Barral et al. (2010). Researchers collected T1 mapping data on the ISMRM/NIST phantom and/or in human brains. Data submission, pipeline development, and analysis were conducted using open-source platforms. Intersubmission and intrasubmission comparisons were performed. RESULTS: Eighteen submissions (39 phantom and 56 human datasets) on scanners by three MRI vendors were collected at 3 T (except one, at 0.35 T). The mean coefficient of variation was 6.1% for intersubmission phantom measurements, and 2.9% for intrasubmission measurements. For humans, the intersubmission/intrasubmission coefficient of variation was 5.9/3.2% in the genu and 16/6.9% in the cortex. An interactive dashboard for data visualization was also developed: https://rrsg2020.dashboards.neurolibre.org. CONCLUSION: The T1 intersubmission variability was twice as high as the intrasubmission variability in both phantoms and human brains, indicating that the acquisition details in the original paper were insufficient to reproduce a quantitative MRI protocol. This study reports the inherent uncertainty in T1 measures across independent research groups, bringing us one step closer to a practical clinical baseline of T1 variations in vivo.

Advanced MR Techniques for Preoperative Glioma Characterization: Part 2.

Preoperative clinical MRI protocols for gliomas, brain tumors with dismal outcomes due to their infiltrative properties, still rely on conventional structural MRI, which does not deliver information on tumor genotype and is limited in the delineation of diffuse gliomas. The GliMR COST action wants to raise awareness about the state of the art of advanced MRI techniques in gliomas and their possible clinical translation. This review describes current methods, limits, and applications of advanced MRI for the preoperative assessment of glioma, summarizing the level of clinical validation of different techniques. In this second part, we review magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS), chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST), susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI), MRI-PET, MR elastography (MRE), and MR-based radiomics applications. The first part of this review addresses dynamic susceptibility contrast (DSC) and dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI, arterial spin labeling (ASL), diffusion-weighted MRI, vessel imaging, and magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF). EVIDENCE LEVEL: 3. TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 2.

Advanced MR Techniques for Preoperative Glioma Characterization: Part 1.

Preoperative clinical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocols for gliomas, brain tumors with dismal outcomes due to their infiltrative properties, still rely on conventional structural MRI, which does not deliver information on tumor genotype and is limited in the delineation of diffuse gliomas. The GliMR COST action wants to raise awareness about the state of the art of advanced MRI techniques in gliomas and their possible clinical translation or lack thereof. This review describes current methods, limits, and applications of advanced MRI for the preoperative assessment of glioma, summarizing the level of clinical validation of different techniques. In this first part, we discuss dynamic susceptibility contrast and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, arterial spin labeling, diffusion-weighted MRI, vessel imaging, and magnetic resonance fingerprinting. The second part of this review addresses magnetic resonance spectroscopy, chemical exchange saturation transfer, susceptibility-weighted imaging, MRI-PET, MR elastography, and MR-based radiomics applications. Evidence Level: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2.