Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 16, 2026

Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Multi-Center, Multi-Vendor Validation of Simultaneous MRI-Based Proton Density Fat Fraction and R2* Mapping Using a
Jitka Starekova1, David Rutkowski2, Won C Bae3
1Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Background:
Fat and iron deposition confound measurements of R2* and proton density fat fraction (PDFF), respectively, yet their combined impact on reproducibility is poorly understood.
Purpose:
To evaluate the multi-center, multi-vendor reproducibility of PDFF and R2* quantification using a PDFF-R2* phantom.
Study Type:
Prospective multi-center, phantom study.
Phantom:
Commercial PDFF-R2* phantom with simultaneously controlled combination of PDFF (0%-30%) and R2* (50-600 s-1) values.
Field Strength/Sequence:
1.5-T and 3-T, three-dimensional (3D) multi-echo, spoiled-gradient-echo sequences, in four different centers, each with a different vendor.
Assessment:
Two acquisition protocols were used, optimized for moderate R2* (Protocol 1) and high R2* (Protocol 2), respectively. The phantom was imaged multiple times at one of the centers to assess its stability.
Statistical Tests:
Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), linear regression analysis, reproducibility coefficient (RDC) and repeatability coefficient (RC).
Results:
Excellent agreement was observed for PDFF measurements between centers, vendors, field strengths, and protocols (ICC = 0.97). Stratified by protocol, excellent agreement was observed, with ICC = 0.96 (RDC = 6.2%) for Protocol 1 and ICC = 0.99 (RDC = 3.8%) for Protocol 2. Increased variability in PDFF measurements was observed with increasing PDFF and especially with higher R2*. Excellent agreement was observed for R2* between centers, vendors, field strengths, and protocols (ICC = 0.99). Stratified by protocol, strong agreement was observed, with ICC = 0.988 (RDC = 66.7 s-1) for Protocol 1 and ICC = 0.99 (RDC = 57.7 s-1) for Protocol 2. Higher variability in R2* measurements was observed in vials with higher PDFF or R2*. Stability tests demonstrated an ICC = 1.0 for PDFF and R2*, and RC of 0.4% for PDFF and 12 s-1 for R2*.
Data Conclusion:
Excellent PDFF and R2* reproducibility was observed across centers, vendors, field strengths, and acquisition protocols. Reproducibility decreased slightly with increasing PDFF and R2*, especially for PDFF measurements in vials with high R2*.
Evidence Level:
N/A.
Technical Efficacy:
Stage 1.
Related Concept Videos
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Imaging Studies I: CT and MRI
Description of the Procedures
Computed Tomography (CT) scan:
Computed Tomography (CT) scans use X-ray technology to generate detailed images of bones, organs, and tissues. During the scan, the patient lies on a moving table...
Imaging Studies for Cardiovascular System IV: CMRI
Imaging Studies IV: Magnetic Resonance Imaging

