Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Reproducibility of scan prescription in follow-up brain MRI: manual versus automatic determination

  • Published:
Radiological Physics and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In follow-up brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), precise reproducibility of the scan prescription is important so that over- or underestimating changes in volumes of clinical interest is prevented. (The scan prescription is defined as the location and orientation of the head with respect to the scan planes of the three-dimensional MRI matrix.) In this study, the misregistration between the original and a second scan was calculated in the case of both manual positioning and automatic positioning. These calculations were carried out both for a healthy volunteer scanned repeatedly and, in a retrospective study, for 225 patients who had an original and at least one follow-up scan. The effects of the scan operator being the same for both scans or being different were also examined. A commercially available 1.5 Tesla MRI system and a six-element head-array coil were employed in all of the imaging. The reproducibility of the scan prescription was determined by the registration of the original scan image to the follow-up scan image by use of the Fourier phase correlation method. Our results showed that (1) the reproducibility by automatic positioning was superior to that by manual positioning (p < 0.05), and (2) there was no significant difference in the results between when the operator was the same or different (p > 0.05). We conclude that, in follow-up brain MRI, automatic positioning should be used, because manual positioning decreases the reproducibility of the scan prescription even if the same operator performs the second scan.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Vaidyanathan M, Clarke LP, Hall LO, Heidtman C, Velthuizen R, Gosche K, Phuphanich S, Wagner H, Greenberg H, Silbiger ML. Monitoring brain tumor response to therapy using MRI segmentation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1997;15:323–34.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Simon JH, Scherzinger A, Raff U, Li X. Computerized method of lesion volume quantitation in multiple sclerosis: error of serial studies. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1997;18:580–2.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Rovaris M, Gawne-Cain ML, Sormani MP, Miller DH, Filippi M. The effect of repositioning on brain MRI lesion load assessment in multiple sclerosis: reliability of subjective quality criteria. J Neurol. 1998;245:273–5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke LP, Velthuizen RP, Clark M, Gaviria J, Hall L, Goldgof D, Murtagh R, Phuphanich S, Brem S. MRI measurement of brain tumor response: comparison of visual metric and automatic segmentation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1998;16:271–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Guttmann CR, Kikinis R, Anderson MC, Jakab M, Warfield SK, Killiany RJ, Weiner HL, Jolesz FA. Quantitative follow-up of patients with multiple sclerosis using MRI: reproducibility. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:509–18.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kikinis R, Guttmann CR, Metcalf D, Wells WM 3rd, Ettinger GJ, Weiner HL, Jolesz FA. Quantitative follow-up of patients with multiple sclerosis using MRI: technical aspects. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1999;9:519–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Tan IL, van Schijndel RA, van Walderveen MA, Quist M, Bos R, Pouwels PJ, Desmedt P, Adèr HJ, Barkhof F. Magnetic resonance image registration in multiple sclerosis: comparison with repositioning error and observer-based variability. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2002;15:505–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Itti L, Chang L, Ernst T. Automatic scan prescription for brain MRI. Magn Reson Med. 2001;45:486–94.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Welch EB, Manduca A, Grimm RC, Jack CR Jr. Interscan registration using navigator echoes. Magn Reson Med. 2004;52:1448–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gedat E, Braun J, Sack I, Bernarding J. Prospective registration of human head magnetic resonance images for reproducible slice positioning using localizer images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2004;20:581–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. van der Kouwe AJ, Benner T, Fischl B, Schmitt F, Salat DH, Harder M, Sorensen AG, Dale AM. On-line automatic slice positioning for brain MR imaging. Neuroimage. 2005;27:222–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Benner T, Wisco JJ, van der Kouwe AJ, Fischl B, Vangel MG, Hochberg FH, Sorensen AG. Comparison of manual and automatic section positioning of brain MR images. Radiology. 2006;239:246–54.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Nelles M, Gieseke J, Urbach H, Semrau R, Bystrov D, Schild HH, Willinek WA. Pre- and postoperative MR brain imaging with automatic planning and scanning software in tumor patients: an intraindividual comparative study at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2009;30:672–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Reddy BS, Chatterji BN. An FFT-based technique for translation, rotation, and scale-invariant image registration. IEEE Trans Image Process. 1996;5:1266–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Foroosh H, Zerubia JB, Berthod M. Extension of phase correlation to subpixel registration. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2002;11:188–200.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hoge WS. A subspace identification extension to the phase correlation method. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2003;22:277–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yosi K, Yoel S, Amir A. Volume registration using the 3-D pseudopolar Fourier transform. IEEE Trans Signal Process. 2006;54:4323–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Jakub B, Jan F. 3D rigid registration by cylindrical phase correlation method. Pattern Recognit Lett. 2009;30:914–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Nelder JA, Mead R. A simplex method for function minimization. Comput J. 1965;7:308–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Press WH, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT, Flannery BP, Numerical recipes in C Japanese edition, Gijutsu Hyoron Sha; 1993. p. 295–9.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was partially supported by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI No. 21591571).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Tokyo Women’s Medical University Medical Center East, Arakawa-ku, Tokyo, 116-8567, Japan

    Shinya Kojima, Masami Hirata & Eiko Ueno

  2. Tokyo Metropolitan University, Arakawa-ku, Tokyo, 116-8551, Japan

    Hiroyuki Shinohara

Authors
  1. Shinya Kojima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Masami Hirata
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiroyuki Shinohara
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eiko Ueno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shinya Kojima.

About this article

Cite this article

Kojima, S., Hirata, M., Shinohara, H. et al. Reproducibility of scan prescription in follow-up brain MRI: manual versus automatic determination. Radiol Phys Technol 6, 375–384 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-013-0211-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12194-013-0211-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation