Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Intensity standardization methods in magnetic resonance imaging of head and neck cancer.
Wahid, Kareem A; He, Renjie; McDonald, Brigid A; Anderson, Brian M; Salzillo, Travis; Mulder, Sam; Wang, Jarey; Sharafi, Christina Setareh; McCoy, Lance A; Naser, Mohamed A; Ahmed, Sara; Sanders, Keith L; Mohamed, Abdallah S R; Ding, Yao; Wang, Jihong; Hutcheson, Kate; Lai, Stephen Y; Fuller, Clifton D; van Dijk, Lisanne V.
Affiliation
  • Wahid KA; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • He R; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • McDonald BA; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Anderson BM; Imaging Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Salzillo T; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Mulder S; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Wang J; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Sharafi CS; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • McCoy LA; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Naser MA; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Ahmed S; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Sanders KL; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Mohamed ASR; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Ding Y; Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Wang J; Radiation Physics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Hutcheson K; Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Lai SY; Head and Neck Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • Fuller CD; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
  • van Dijk LV; Departments of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States.
Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol ; 20: 88-93, 2021 Oct.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34849414
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND

PURPOSE:

Conventional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) poses challenges in quantitative analysis because voxel intensity values lack physical meaning. While intensity standardization methods exist, their effects on head and neck MRI have not been investigated. We developed a workflow based on healthy tissue region of interest (ROI) analysis to determine intensity consistency within a patient cohort. Through this workflow, we systematically evaluated intensity standardization methods for MRI of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients. MATERIALS AND

METHODS:

Two HNC cohorts (30 patients total) were retrospectively analyzed. One cohort was imaged with heterogenous acquisition parameters (HET cohort), whereas the other was imaged with homogenous acquisition parameters (HOM cohort). 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, a Friedman test followed by a post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected Wilcoxon signed-rank test was conducted to compare SD NMIc among methods.

RESULTS:

Consistency (SD NMIc across ROIs) between unstandardized images was substantially more impaired in the HET cohort (0.29 ± 0.08) than in the HOM cohort (0.15 ± 0.03). Consequently, corrected p-values for intensity standardization methods with lower SD NMIc compared to unstandardized images were significant in the HET cohort (p < 0.05) but not significant in the HOM cohort (p > 0.05). In both cohorts, differences between methods were often minimal and nonsignificant.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings stress the importance of intensity standardization, either through the utilization of uniform acquisition parameters or specific intensity standardization methods, and the need for testing intensity consistency before performing quantitative analysis of HNC MRI.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country:

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Language: En Journal: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol Year: 2021 Document type: Article Affiliation country: