Inter-scanner comparability of Z-scores for native myocardial T1 and T2 mapping

Abstract

BackgroundCardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (CMR) native T1 and T2 mapping serve as robust, contrast-agent-free diagnostic tools, but hardware- and software-specific sources of variability limit the generalizability of data across CMR platforms, consequently limiting the interpretability of patient-specific parametric data. Z-scores are used to describe the relationship of observed values to the mean results as obtained in a sufficiently large normal sample. They have been successfully used to describe the severity of quantifiable abnormalities in medicine, specifically in children and adolescents. The objective of this study was to observe whether z-scores can improve the comparability of T1 and T2 mapping values across CMR scanners, field strengths, and sequences from different vendors in the same participant rather than different participants (as seen in previous studies). MethodsFifty-one healthy volunteers (26 men/25 women, mean age = 43 ± 13.51) underwent three CMR exams on three different scanners, using a Modified Look-Locker Inversion Recovery (MOLLI) 5-(3)− 3 sequence to quantify myocardial T1. For T2 mapping, a True Fast Imaging with steady-state free precession (TRUFI) sequence was used on a 3 T Skyra™ (Siemens), and a T2 Fast Spin Echo (FSE) sequence was used on 1.5 T Artist™ (GE) and 3.0 T Premier™ (GE) scanners. The averages of basal and mid-ventricular short axis slices were used to derive means and standard deviations of global mapping values. We used intra-class comparisons (ICC), repeated measures ANOVA, and paired Student’s t-tests for statistical analyses. ResultsThere was a significant improvement in intra-subject comparability of T1 (ICC of 0.11 (95% CI= −0.018, −0.332) vs 0.78 (95% CI= 0.650, 0.866)) and T2 (ICC of 0.35 (95% CI= −0.053, 0.652) vs 0.83 (95% CI= 0.726, 0.898)) when using z-scores across all three scanners. While the absolute global T1 and T2 values showed a statistically significant difference between scanners (p < 0.001), no such differences were identified using z-scores (T1z: p = 0.771; T2z: p = 0.985). Furthermore, when images were not corrected for motion, T1 z-scores showed significant inter-scanner variability (p < 0.001), resolved by motion correction. ConclusionEmploying z-scores for reporting myocardial T1 and T2 removes the variation of quantitative mapping results across different MRI systems and field strengths, improving the clinical utility of myocardial tissue characterization in patients with suspected myocardial disease.