Radiological Society of North America/Quantitative Imaging Biomarker Alliance Shear Wave Speed Bias Quantification in Elastic and Viscoelastic Phantoms
Mark L. Palmeri, Andy Milkowski, R. Graham Barr, Paul L. Carson, Mathieu Couade, Jun Chen, Shigao Chen, Manish Dhyani, Richard L. Ehman, Brian S. Garra, Albert Gee, Gilles Guenette, Zaegyoo Hah, Ted Lynch, Michael Macdonald, Ravi Managuli, Véronique Miette, Kathryn R. Nightingale, Nancy A. Obuchowski, Ned C. Rouze, D. Cody Morris, Shana Fielding, Yufeng Deng, Derek Y. Chan, Kingshuk Roy Choudhury, Siyun Yang, Anthony E. Samir, Vijay Shamdasani, Matthew W. Urban, Keith A. Wear, Hua Xie, Arinc Ozturk, Bo Qiang, Pengfei Song, Stephen A. McAleavey, Stephen Rosenzweig, Michael Wang, Yoko Okamura, Glen McLaughlin, Yuling Chen, David Napolitano, Lindsey Carlson, Todd N. Erpelding, Timothy J. Hall
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To quantify the bias of shear wave speed (SWS) measurements between different commercial ultrasonic shear elasticity systems and a magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) system in elastic and viscoelastic phantoms. METHODS: Two elastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver, were measured with 5 different ultrasound platforms, and 3 viscoelastic phantoms, representing healthy through fibrotic liver tissue, were measured with 12 different ultrasound platforms. Measurements were performed with different systems at different sites, at 3 focal depths, and with different appraisers. The SWS bias across the systems was quantified as a function of the system, site, focal depth, and appraiser. A single MRE research system was also used to characterize these phantoms using discrete frequencies from 60 to 500 Hz. RESULTS: The SWS from different systems had mean difference 95% confidence intervals of ±0.145 m/s (±9.6%) across both elastic phantoms and ± 0.340 m/s (±15.3%) across the viscoelastic phantoms. The focal depth and appraiser were less significant sources of SWS variability than the system and site. Magnetic resonance elastography best matched the ultrasonic SWS in the viscoelastic phantoms using a 140 Hz source but had a - 0.27 ± 0.027-m/s (-12.2% ± 1.2%) bias when using the clinically implemented 60-Hz vibration source. CONCLUSIONS: Shear wave speed reconstruction across different manufacturer systems is more consistent in elastic than viscoelastic phantoms, with a mean difference bias of < ±10% in all cases. Magnetic resonance elastographic measurements in the elastic and viscoelastic phantoms best match the ultrasound systems with a 140-Hz excitation but have a significant negative bias operating at 60 Hz. This study establishes a foundation for meaningful comparison of SWS measurements made with different platforms.