Table 1.
MRI protocol acquisition parameters.
Fig 1.
Schematic of MRI data acquisition.
A) Example MRI of synthetic phantoms with calibrated properties that were shipped to five different sites for imaging. The phantom (upper left) consisted of three components. The leftmost bottle contained phantoms with canola oil, bovine serum albumin, and gadolinium-doped gelatin to validate fat fraction, MTR, and T1 measurements, respectively. Example fat fraction, MTR, and T1 maps are shown on the bottom row. The middle bottle contained a 3D printed pancreas created from an MRI of a normal volunteer pancreas and subsequently embedded in agar for imaging (middle row). The rightmost bottle contained deionized water chilled to 0°C to validate diffusion-weighted MRI measurements. B) Five healthy volunteers traveled to four sites in the US (Austin, Chicago, Denver, and Nashville) for an MRI of the pancreas using the harmonized acquisition protocol. C) MAP-T1D study logo.
Fig 2.
Flow chart of MRI data acquisition and processing.
Table 2.
MRI reproducibility results.
Fig 3.
Quantitative MRI measures for 5 individuals scanned on four different MRI centers.
Values for each MRI measurement of the pancreas are displayed for: A) pancreas volume index (PVI), B) surface area to volume ratio, C) longitudinal relaxation time (T1), D) apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), E) pancreatic fat fraction, and F) hepatic fat fraction. Note that fat fraction was not measured in Denver due to a lack of the requisite software. For the graphs of PVI, surface area to volume ratio, and ADC, the distribution of values calculated in healthy volunteers at a single site study (updated from a previously published study [5]) is indicated by dot plot in panels A, B, D.
Table 3.
Projected number of study participants required for future clinical trial (multisite).
Table 4.
Projected number of study participants required for future clinical trial (single site).
Fig 4.
Representative difference in quantitative MRI measurements induced by use of different image processing between sites.
A) Representative maps of T1 relaxation time (left column) and ADC (right column) displayed in pseudo color over a T1-weighted image. The top row displays images acquired in Chicago and processed using a non-standardized image processing protocol, demonstrating differences in T1 and ADC values from the standardized protocol (middle row). Images acquired and processed using the standardized MAP-T1D protocol in Chicago on a Philips MRI scanner (middle row) and Austin on a Siemens MRI scanner (bottom row) display concordance for T1 and ADC. All sets of parametric maps are scaled identically for visualization. B) Mean pancreatic T1 values are more reproducible between two sites (Chicago and Austin) using the standardized image analysis protocol (red circles), than when using non-standardized image processing (blue squares). The line of identity indicates perfect agreement. C) Mean pancreatic ADC values are more reproducible between two sites (Chicago and Austin) when using the standardized image analysis protocol (red circles), than when using non-standardized image processing (blue squares).