Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41310358›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied clinical medical physics2025

Normalization of temperature effects for quality assurance of quantitative prostate apparent diffusion coefficient imaging across multiple sites.

Ken-Pin Hwang, Joshua Yung, R Jason Stafford, Caroline Chung, Aradhana M Venkatesan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied clinical medical physics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ken-Pin HwangDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8196-3794
Joshua YungDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3752-5997
R Jason StaffordDepartment of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4091-8417
Caroline ChungDepartment of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9662-1519
Aradhana M VenkatesanDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5033-0820

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC) as measured by diffusion weighted imaging is known to negatively correlate with prostate tumor aggressiveness. Heterogeneity in system and protocol performance causes potential variability in ADC acquired across a large scanner network, prompting a need to evaluate quantitative ADC from a prostate-specific MR diffusion protocol as part of quality assurance (QA). Due to the temperature dependence of ADC, repeatability and reproducibility assessments typically require phantoms to maintain a temperature of 0°C, imposing a considerable burden when assessing large numbers of scanners. PURPOSE: To develop a QA procedure at room temperature for assessing the reproducibility of ADC measured by our prostate diffusion MRI protocols, by employing a model relating ADC and phantom gel concentration to temperature.

methodsA diffusion phantom was imaged with our clinical prostate diffusion protocols on 1.5 T (n = 4) and 3 T (n = 4) scanners in separate geographical locations (n = 4). Phantom temperature was not strictly controlled but measured immediately before and after each acquisition. Regions of interest were drawn in phantom compartments to produce ADC measurements at varying phantom gel concentrations. The ADC temperature model was applied using measured temperatures to produce normalized ADC measurements at a reference temperature of 20°C. Percent difference and coefficient of variation (CV) calculations were performed on the measurements with and without normalization.

resultsTemperature normalization reduced the range of ADC percent difference across scanners. The maximum CV of clinically relevant ADC values was reduced from 5.0% to 3.4% when normalized to the temperature model, while CV of pure water was reduced from 3.3% to 1.3%.

conclusionWe have developed a QA procedure that incorporates a temperature model to obviate the need for strict temperature control of a diffusion phantom, facilitating ADC reproducibility assessments of a prostate diffusion MRI protocol across a large scanner network.

Indexed as

Diffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingImage Processing, Computer-AssistedPhantoms, ImagingProstatic NeoplasmsQuality Assurance, Health CareHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsTemperatureapparent diffusion coefficientdiffusion weighted imagingprostate imagingquality assurancetemperature effects on diffusion

Identifiers

PMID41310358
PMCPMC12660052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.