Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a new phantom simulating extracellular space of tumor cell growth and cell edema for diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 14 February 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Objective

A phantom for diffusion-weighted imaging is required to standardize quantitative evaluation. The objectives were to develop a phantom simulating various cell densities and to evaluate repeatability.

Materials and methods

The acrylic fine particles with three different diameters were used to simulate human cells. Four-degree cell density components were developed by adjusting the volume of 10-μm particles (5, 20, 35, and 50% volume, respectively). Two-degree components to simulate cell edema were also developed by adjusting the diameter without changing number (17% and 40% volume, respectively). Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient was used to find a significant correlation between apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and particle density. Coefficient of variation (CV) for ADC was calculated for each component for 6 months. A p value < 0.05 represented a statistically significance.

Results

Each component (particle ratio of 5, 17, 20, 35, 40, and 50% volume, respectively) presented ADC values of 1.42, 1.30, 1.30, 1.12, 1.09, and 0.89 (× 10−3 mm2/s), respectively. A negative correlation (r =  − 0.986, p < 0.05) was observed between ADC values and particle ratio. CV for ADC was less than 5%.

Discussion

A phantom simulating the diffusion restriction correlating with cell density and size could be developed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 14 February 2020

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. Second column of “Cell edema” should read as.

Abbreviations

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

ADC:

Apparent diffusion coefficient

CV:

Coefficient of variation

SD:

Standard deviation

References

  1. Schaefer PW, Grant PE, Gonzalez RG (2000) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 217:331–345

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tien RD, Felsberg GJ, Friedman H, Brown M, MacFall J (1994) MR imaging of high-grade cerebral gliomas: value of diffusion weighted echo planar pulse sequences. AJR 162:671–677

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Okamoto K, Ito J, Ishikawa K, Sakai K, Tokiguchi S (2000) Diffusion-weighted echo-planar MR imaging in differentiation diagnosis of brain tumors and tumor-like conditions. Eur Radiol 10:1342–1350

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Koh DM, Collins DJ (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR 188:1622–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kolff-Gart AS, Pouwels PJW, Noji DP et al (2015) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the head and neck in healthy subjects: reproducibility of ADC values in different MRI systems and repeat sessions. AJNR 36:384–390

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Boll DT, Merkle EM (2009) Short- and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Radiology 250:459–465

  7. Kivrak AS, Paksoy Y, Erol C, Koplay M, Ozbek S, Kara F (2013) Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient values among different MRI platforms: a multicenter phantom study. Diagn interv Radiol 19:433–437

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sasaki M, Yamada K, Watanabe Y et al (2008) Variability in absolute apparent diffusion coefficient values across different platforms may be substantial: a multivendor, multi-institutional comparison study. Radiology 249:624–630

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Malyarenko DI, Newitt D, Wilmes LJ et al (2016) Demonstration of nonlinearity bias in the measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in multicenter trials. Magn Reson Med 75:1312–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lavdas I, Behan KC, Papadaki A, McRobbie DW, Aboagye EO (2013) A phantom for diffusion-weighted MRI (DW-MRI). J Magn Reson Imaging 38:173–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Matsuya R, Kuroda M, Matsumoto Y et al (2009) A new phantom using polyethylene glycol as an apparent diffusion coefficient standard for MR imaging. Int J Oncol 35:893–900

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Gatidis S, Schmidt H, Martirosian P, Schwenzer NF (2014) Development of an MRI phantom for diffusion-weighted imaging with independent adjustment of apparent diffusion coefficient values and T2 relaxation times. Magn Reson Med 72:459–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chenevert TL, Galban CJ, Ivancevic MK et al (2011) Diffusion coefficient measurement using a temperature-controlled fluid for quality control in multicenter studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 34:983–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Malyarenko D, Galban CJ, Londy FJ et al (2013) Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1238–1246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Jerome NP, Papoutsaki MV, Orton MR et al (2016) Development of a temperature-controlled phantom for magnetic resonance quality assurance of diffusion, dynamic, and relaxometry measurements. Med Phys 43:2998–3007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lee CY, Bennett KM, Debbins JP (2013) Sensitivities of statistical distribution model and diffusion kurtosis model in varying microstructural environments: a Monte Carlo study. J Magn Reson 320:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ogura A, Hayakawa K, Miyati T, Maeda F (2011) Imaging parameter effects in apparent diffusion coefficient determination of magnetic resonance imaging. Eur J Radiol 77:185–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lyng H, Haraldseth O, Rofstad EK (2000) Measurement of cell density and necrotic fraction in human melanoma xenografts by diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 43:828–836

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Szafer A, Jianhui Z et al (1995) Theoretical model for water diffusion in tissues. Magn Reson Med 33:697–712

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, Lavel-Jeantet M (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168:497–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Ryoji Mikayama & Mitsuhiro Kimura

  2. Department of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Hidetake Yabuuchi

  3. Division of Radiological Technology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Ryoji Matsumoto, Koji Kobayashi & Yasuo Yamashita

  4. Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1, Maidashi, Higashi-ku, Fukuoka, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan

    Takeshi Kamitani, Koji Sagiyama & Yuzo Yamasaki

Authors
  1. Ryoji Mikayama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hidetake Yabuuchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ryoji Matsumoto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Koji Kobayashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Yasuo Yamashita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mitsuhiro Kimura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Takeshi Kamitani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Koji Sagiyama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Yuzo Yamasaki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study conception and design: HY. Acquisition of data: RM, HY, RM, KK, and YY. Analysis and interpretation of data: RM, HY, and MK. Drafting of manuscript: RM. Critical revision: HY, TK, KS, and YY.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hidetake Yabuuchi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mikayama, R., Yabuuchi, H., Matsumoto, R. et al. Development of a new phantom simulating extracellular space of tumor cell growth and cell edema for diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Mater Phy 33, 507–513 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-019-00823-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-019-00823-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation