Reproducibility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in head and neck cancer assessed on a 1.5 T MR-Linac and comparison to parallel measurements on a 3 T diagnostic scanner

• Published in: Radiotherapy and oncology Vol. 191; p. 110046
• Main Authors: Habrich, Jonas, Boeke, Simon, Fritz, Victor, Koerner, Elisa, Nikolaou, Konstantin, Schick, Fritz, Gani, Cihan, Zips, Daniel, Thorwarth, Daniela
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Ireland Elsevier B.V 01.02.2024
• Subjects: Apparent diffusion coefficient; Diffusion Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Diffusion-weighted imaging; Functional imaging; Head and Neck Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging; Head and Neck Neoplasms - radiotherapy; Hematology, Oncology, and Palliative Medicine; Humans; Magnetic Resonance Imaging; MR guided radiation therapy; MR-Linac; Parotid Gland; Reproducibility; Reproducibility of Results; Diffusion-weighted imaging; MR-Linac; MR guided radiation therapy; Reproducibility; Functional imaging; Apparent diffusion coefficient
• ISSN: 0167-8140; 1879-0887; 1879-0887
• DOI: 10.1016/j.radonc.2023.110046

•Mean ADC values were reproducible with wCVs between 13.7% and 24.4%•Mean ADC values differed between 93 ·10-6 mm2/s 6.4% for target volumes and 254 ·10-6 mm2/s 24.3% for parotid glands between diagnostic scanner and MR-Linac.•Intraclass correlation coefficient was better for target volumes than glandular tissues.•MR-Linac underestimates mean ADC values in contrast to diagnostic scanner. Before quantitative imaging biomarkers (QIBs) acquired with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can be used for interventional trials in radiotherapy (RT), technical validation of these QIBs is necessary. The aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values, derived from diffusion-weighted (DW) MRI, in head and neck cancer using a 1.5 T MR-Linac (MRL) by comparison to a 3 T diagnostic scanner (DS). DW-MRIs were acquired on MRL and DS for 15 head and neck cancer patients before RT and in week 2 and rigidly registered to the planning computed tomography. Mean ADC values were calculated for submandibular (SG) and parotid (PG) glands as well as target volumes (TV, gross tumor volume and lymph nodes), which were delineated based on computed tomography. Mean absolute ADC differences as well as within-subject coefficient of variation (wCV) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated for all volumes of interest. A total of 23 datasets were analyzed. Mean ADC difference (DS-MRL) for SG, PG and TV resulted in 142, 254 and 93·10-6 mm2/s. wCVs/ICCs, comparing MRL and DS, were determined as 13.7 %/0.26, 24.4 %/0.23 and 16.1 %/0.73 for SG, PG and TV, respectively. ADC values, measured on the 1.5 T MRL, showed reasonable reproducibility with an ADC underestimation in contrast to the DS. This ADC shift must be validated in further experiments and considered for future translation of QIB candidates from DS to MRL for response adaptive RT.