japan-qiba...10 122 phantom 4000 5 3.8 20 5 min 4 sec volunteer 4000 4 1 30 6 min 12 sec magnetom...

5/14/2018

1

Special Program at the 77th Annual Meeting of the JRS, April

2018:Special Program about QIBA: Standardization of Quantitative Imaging: Recent

topics of QIBA (90 min.) during annual meeting, chair: Shigeki Aoki & Ukihide

Tateishi

• Objectives and Current Status of RSNA/QIBA Guimaraes AR (Oregon Health

and Science Univ.)

• Recent Advances of J-QIBA Activities in CT and MRI, with special reference

on Synthetic MRI Hagiwara A (Tokyo Univ.)

• Recent Activities and Future Aspects of Standardization and SUV

Harmonization for a Quantitative FDG-PET Imging Akamatsu G (QST-NIRS)

Japan-QIBA

From Japan Radiological Society (JRS)

Ukihide Tateishi, Vice-Chair of J-QIBA

Director of JRS

•MR•Japanese Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (JSMRM) is willing to join with QIBA and J-QIBA; JSMRM and JRS joint committee meet twice per year.•There is significant interest in MRE efforts. KAKEN(one of the Japanese Government Grant) approved our proposal and assigned a budget of ~$40,000 USD/year to the 3-year J-QIBA project about MR elastography. In this project, we will make a stiffness phantom, which works to both MR and ultrasound elastography.•T1 & T2 mapping – Cooperation with Synthetic MR in standardization of values acquired by QRAPMASTER sequence

•NM •Active participation of SPECT public comment regarding the QIBA profile for the DaT-SPECT profile in cooperation with the Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine (JSNM). •JSNM invited a QIBA speaker to the Asian Oceania Nuclear Medicine Conference to be held in Yokohama in October 5-7, 2017.•There is a specific interest in developing guidelines for standardization of analysis software.•Field data from International Phase I/II Study of PET/CT was analyzed and presented at the 12th Congress of World Federation of Nuclear Medicine and Biology in April, 2018.

•CT •specific interest in developing guidelines for standardization of software.

Activities of Japan-QIBA 2017

5/14/2018

2

• Protocol:

3 tube currents were examined at 400mA (standard-dose CT: SDCT),

100mA (reduced-dose CT: RDCT) and 50 mA (low-dose CT: LDCT)

were applied to 64- and 80-detector row helical scan and wide volume

scan methods at Aquilion ONE (Canon Medical Systems Co.).

Methods

Tube

current

(mA)

Tube

voltage

(kVp)

Detector

collimation

Beam

pitch

Reconstruction

section

thickness

(mm)

Reconstruction

method

Reconstruction

kernel

64-detector row helical

scan (64-HS)

SDCT 400

120

64×0.5mm 0.83

1mmFilter Back

ProjectionFC17

RDCT 100

LDCT 50


scan (80-HS)

SDCT 400

80×0.5mm 0.81RDCT 100

LDCT 50

Wide volume scan

(WVS)

SDCT 400

80×0.5mm n/aRDCT 100

LDCT 50

COPDgene II Phantom Study on Aquilion ONE-Influence of Scan Method to Lung Density Measurement-

Ohno Y, et al. (Under review)

1. Comparison of the limits of agreement

• Accuracy of HU measurement was confirmed for all the CT doses used in

this study.

• It was shown that accuracy increases in the order of 64-HS, 80-HS, and

WVS.

MethodsThe limits of agreement (HU)

(mean±1.96×tandard deviation)

64-detector row helical scan

(64-HS)

SDCT -6.5±0.3

RDCT -6.6±0.4

LDCT -6.6±0.4

80-detector row helical scan

(80-HS)

SDCT -4.0±0.3

RDCT -4.4±0.3

LDCT -4.5±0.3

Wide volume scan

(WVS)

SDCT -2.9±0.4

RDCT -3.1±0.4

LDCT -3.1±0.5



5/14/2018

3

• Protocol:

3 tube currents were examined at 400mA (standard-dose CT: SDCT),

100mA (reduced-dose CT: RDCT) and 50 mA (low-dose CT: LDCT)

were applied to 64- and 80-detector row helical scan and wide volume

scan methods at Aquilion ONE (Canon Medical Systems Co.).

Methods

Tube

current

(mA)

Tube

voltage

(kVp)

Detector

collimation

Beam

pitch

Reconstruction

section

thickness

(mm)

Reconstruction

method

Reconstruction

kernel


scan (64-HS)

SDCT 400

120

64×0.5mm 0.83

1mm

Filter Back

Projection

Adaptive

Iterative

Reconstruction

using 3D

Processing

(AIDR 3D)

Forward

Projected Model-

based Iterative

Reconstruction

Solution (FIRST)

FC17

RDCT 100

LDCT 50


scan (80-HS)

SDCT 400

80×0.5mm 0.81RDCT 100

LDCT 50

Wide volume scan

(WVS)

SDCT 400

80×0.5mm n/aRDCT 100

LDCT 50



2. Comparison of the limits of agreement

• At low-dose, AIDR 3D and FIRST showed higher accuracy than FBP.

• AIDR 3D and FIRST showed similar accuracy at all dose.

MethodsThe limits of agreement (HU)

(mean±1.96×SD)

Filter Back Projection (FBP)

SDCT 3.0±0.4

RDCT 3.5±0.4

LDCT 4.1±0.5

Adaptive Iterative Dose Reduction

using 3D Processing (AIDR 3D)

SDCT 2.9±0.4

RDCT 3.1±0.4

LDCT 3.1±0.5

Forward Projected Iterative

Reconstruction (FIRST)

SDCT 2.8±0.4

RDCT 2.9±0.4

LDCT 3.0±0.5



5/14/2018

4

Measurement Standardization of

MR elastography of the Liver:

Multi-institutional Study

JRS-JSMRM joint study

PI: JRS QIBA MR group: Kengo Yoshimitsu (Fukuoka University)

ISMRM MRE Project Leader: Mikio Suga (Chiba University)

office: Dept. of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Fukuoka University

Dec. 2017 ～

Retrospective Data recruitment, Prospective measurement experiment

Yoshimitsu K, et al.




Liver MRE DICOM data of pathologically proven 15 patients from Fukuoka

University

Primary endpoint: to check consistency of measured values vs reference

standard

1st measurement using the method of their own, without any instruction

- Possible factors to affect consistency

Secondary endpoint: to confirm effect of educational intervention

In 2 months or later from 1st measurement, 2nd measurement will be asked according to the

step-by-step instruction

※ reference standard (liver stiffness in kPa@ MRE): defined by central

committeeYoshimitsu K, et al.

5/14/2018

5

case from pilot study Site#1 Site#2

wave images anatomical images

slic

e 1

4.3 kPa 2.8 kPa

slic

e 3

4.3 kPa 2.9 kPa




To date (March 31, 2018), invitations to participate the study were sent to 32 institutes nationwide (only GE users)

17 agreed (3.0T: n=10, 1.5T: n=7), 3 disagreed, and 12 no reply yet

8/17 completed 1st measurement

Future plan Extend invitations to Siemens and Philips users

Wait for 1st measurement results from 9/17 institutes

2nd measurement along with instruction to confirm the effect of educational intervention

Yoshimitsu K, et al.

5/14/2018

6

PurposeTo create and to start the discussion of anisotropic diffusion MRI

(J-QIBA AdMRI-WG)

Ave. radius

19.73μm±25.46

Astriciton cotton

Φ20mm x 30mm

(Hakujuji Co.Ltd., Tokyo)

Phantom

Kyoto Prefectural University of Medicine, Department of RadiologyKoji Sakai Toshiaki Nakagawa Hiroyasu Ikeno Kei Yamada

Juntendo University, Department of RadiologySyo Murata Masaaki Hori Shigeki Aoki

Kyoto University, Institute for Frontier Medical SciencesRyusuke Nakai

J-QIBA

AdMRI-WGAnisotropic diffusion MRI Working Group

Juntendo Univ. Hospital KPUM Hospital

Kyoto Univ. IFMS

To begin the discussion about anisotropic diffusion

DTI round-robin scan was conductedJ-QIBA

AdMRI-WG

Sakai K, et al.

ADCCV = 6.85%

FACV = 27.1%

5/14/2018

7

Scanner Vendor Head

Coil

(Channel

s)

TE

(ms)

ETL BW

(Hz/pixel)

Scan

Objects

TR

(ms)

Slice

thickn

ess

(mm)

Gap

(mm

)

Slice

numb

er

Acquisition

time

Discovery

750w

GE 19 16.9,

84.5

10 122 Phantom 4000 5 3.8 20 5 min 4 sec

Volunteer 4000 4 1 30 6 min 12 sec

MAGNETOM

Prisma

Siemens 64 22, 99 10 150 Phantom 4250 5 3.8 20 5 min 8 sec


Ingenia Philips 32 13,

100

10 216 Phantom 3000 5 3.8 20 4 min 55 sec


Linearity, Bias, Intra-scanner Repeatability, and Inter-Scanner Reproducibility of Quantitative Multi-Dynamic

Multi-Echo Sequence at 3T: Validation Study with a Standardized Phantom and Healthy Controls. [in submission]

Synthetic MRIAkifumi Hagiwara, et al.

Synthetic MRI (QRAPMASTER) standardization

•Cooperation with SyntheticMR. We scanned 10 volunteer

brains on three different 3 T scanners (GE, Siemens,

Philips). Inter-scanner coefficient of variation (CoV) was 1–

3% for T1 and PD, and 4–6% for T2.

Horita et al. Presented at JSMRM2017

Hagiwara et al. [in submission]

Inter-scanner CV

5/14/2018

8

Inter-scanner CV

Synthetic MRI (QRAPMASTER) standardization

• Intra-scanner CVs for scan-rescan were less than 2% on

all ROIs for T1, T2, and PD on all three scanners.

Horita et al. Presented at JSMRM2017

5/14/2018

9

Next, we scanned standardized ISMRM/NIST

phantom with known values 10 times each on three

scanners.

Inter-scanner CV was:

T1 3–10%

T2 4–15%

PD 1–10%

ISMRM/NIST phantom

with known T1, T2 ,and PD values

Values in the range

of brain (GM and

WM)

5/14/2018

10

Standardization of FDG-PET/CT for Response Evaluation by RSNA-QIBA Profile: Preliminary Results of a Multicenter Study

Ukihide Tateishi

Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo Medical and Dental University

Introduction

Peripheral T-Cell Lymphoma (PTCL) is non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and originate from mature T-cells. PTCL is aggressive and the outcome is poor, and it has been desired to establish new treatment. FDG-PET/CT is used for evaluation of therapeutic effect against malignant lymphoma.

The Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (QIBA) is organized by the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) to establish quantitative imaging biomarkers. FDG-PET/CT Biomarker Committee in QIBA has created a profile for evaluation by FDG-PET/CT.

International multicenter clinical trial for PTCL in Asia has been conducted, and standardization among PET/CT scanners in the facilities was performed. We show the results of standardization by phantom tests based on RSNA-QIBA profile.

5/14/2018

11

Methods and Materials

Reference

FDG-PET/CT as an Imaging Biomarker Measuring Response to Cancer Therapy, Quantitative ImagingBiomarkers Alliance, Version 1.11

Phantom

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) Body Phantom

For evaluation of the scanner, we performed the following three measurements as described in theprofile:

(1) standardized uptake value (SUV) measurements

An SUV for a large central ROI should be 1.0 with an acceptable range of 0.9 to 1.1.

(2) resolution measurements

13 mm hot sphere in NEMA phantom should be visible.

(3) noise measurements

The coefficient of variation (COV) of the voxel values within the region in the background area shouldbe below 15%.

We adjusted parameters of the imaging condition to fulfill these criteria.

ResultsTwelve facilities in Asia (South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong) were enrolled in thistrial, and standardization was carried out. We revised imaging conditions to meetthe criteria of the profile as needed.

Scanner Injected dose

Scan duraion (min) image reconstruction

initial revision initial parameter revised parameter

Discovery 600 3.7 MBq/kg 2.0 2.0VUE point HD (Interation:2, Subsets:16,

Gaussian filter:6.4mm)

VUE point HD (Interation:2, Subsets:16,


Discovery PET/CT 690 5.92 MBq/kg 2.0 2.0

VUE point FX reconstrucion method

(Interation:2, Subsets:16, Gaussian

filter:6.4mm)

VUE point FX reconstrucion method

(Interation:2, Subsets:16, Gaussian

filter:6.4mm)

Biograph6 TruePoint 5.3 MBq/kg 3.5 3.53D Iterative (Interation:2, Subsets:8,

Gaussian filter:4mm)

3D Iterative (Interation:3, Subsets:21,


Discovery STE 16 5 MBq/kg 2.5 2.5

Interative (VUE point) (Interation:2,

Subset:20, Z-axis Filter:standard,

Post(Gaussian) Filter:4.29mm)

Interative (VUE point) (Interation:2,

Subset:20, Z-axis Filter:standard,

Post(Gaussian) Filter:4.29mm)

Discovery 710 5.18 MBq/kg 2.0 2.0VUE point FX+sharpIR (Interation:4,

Subsets:18, Filter cutoff:4.0mm)

VUE point FX (Interation:3, Subsets:18,

Filter cutoff:4.0mm)

Biograph 40 TruePoint 3.7 MBq/kg 2.5 2.53D Iterative (Interation:3, Subsets:8,


3D Iterative (Interation:3, Subsets:21,


Discovery VCT 5.29 MBq/kg 2.5 2.53D-IR (Interation:2, Subsets:28,

Standard filter:6mm)

3D-IR (Interation:2, Subsets:28, Standard

filter:6mm)

Discovery 710 10 mCi 3.0 3.0 Qclear 300VPFX (Interation:2, Subsets:16,


Biograph mCT 10 mCi 1.5 1.5TrueX+TOF (Interation:2, Subset:21,


3D-OSEM (Interation:2, Subset:21,

Gaussian filter:3mm)+TOF

Biograph mCT Flow

40-4R10 mCi

motion

flow1.5

3D-OSEM+TOF+PSF (Interation:2,

Subset:21, Gaussian filter:5.0mm)

3D-OSEM (Interation:2, Subset:21,

Gaussian filter:5mm)+TOF

Discovery PET/CT 710 5.18 MBq/kg 2.5 2.5VUE point FX (Interation:2, Subsets:24,




Discovery PET/CT 710 7.4 MBq/kg 2.0 2.0VUE point FX (Interation:3, Subsets:18,




5/14/2018

12

ResultsAfter revision, we confirmed that the image quality met the criteria of the threemeasurements in all sites.

Site

SUV measurementsResolution

measurements

Noise measurements

mean SD COV (%)

A 1.0 0.1 Yes 11.9%

B 1.0 0.1 Yes 5.2%

C 0.9 0.1 Yes 6.1%

D 1.0 0.1 Yes 7.7%

E 1.1 0.1 Yes 7.1%

F 1.1 0.1 Yes 11.7%

G 0.9 0.1 Yes 8.3%

H 1.1 0.1 Yes 8.6%

I 1.0 0.1 Yes 7.9%

J 1.1 0.1 Yes 8.7%

K 1.0 0.1 Yes 9.7%

L 1.0 0.1 Yes 10.4%

0 4 0 4SUV

Phantom image. The left image was reconstructed in Site A (COV 11.9%), and the right was in Site B (COV 5.2%).

Site A Site B

Japan Safe Radiology

Ordering Scanning Diagnosis

Japan Medical Image Database : J-MID

Clinical Decision

SupportDose Index Registry

Standardization and

Optimization

J-QIBA Report Registry

Equipment

Proper distribution of

medical equipment

and radiologists

Establishment of Japan Safe Radiology ad hoc committee in June 2016

1

A.I.

Japan- QIBA in the Japan Safe Radiology

Japan Safe Radiology* : 3 million US Dollar/year project of AMED (Japanese version of NIH)

is just started from 2017

*

5/14/2018

13

J-QIBA is a key for high quality database and A.I.

J-MID

CDSsoftware

Appropriateness criteria

J-QIBAQuantitative Imaging

Biomarker

Appropriate data without domestic and other bias

AI, under control of JRS

A.I.

Standardized data

Data forstandardization

Feed back

Database of JRS

japan-qiba...10 122 phantom 4000 5 3.8 20 5 min 4 sec volunteer 4000 4 1 30 6 min 12 sec magnetom...

Documents