MRI quality control: six imagers studied using eleven unified image quality parameters

Quality control of the magnetic resonance imagers of different vendors in the clinical environment is non-harmonised, and comparing the performance is difficult. The purpose of this study was to develop and apply a harmonised long-term quality control protocol for the six imagers in our organisation in order to assure that they fulfil the same basic image quality requirements. The same Eurospin phantom set and identical imaging parameters were used with each imager. Values of 11 comparable parameters describing the image quality were measured. Automatic image analysis software was developed to objectively analyse the images. The results proved that the imagers were operating at a performance level adequate for clinical imaging. Some deficiencies were detected in image uniformity and geometry. The automated analysis of the Eurospin phantom images was successful. The measurements were successfully repeated after 2 weeks on one imager and after half a year on all imagers. As an objective way of examining the image quality, this kind of comparable and objective quality control of different imagers is considered as an essential step towards harmonisation of the clinical MRI studies through a large hospital organisation.

[1]  R A Lerski,et al.  Trial of modifications to Eurospin MRI test objects. , 1993, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[2]  T D Cradduck,et al.  National electrical manufacturers association , 1983, Journal of the A.I.E.E..

[3]  Walter Heindel,et al.  Hazardous situation in the MR bore: induction in ECG leads causes fire , 2003, European Radiology.

[4]  L. Axel,et al.  Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. , 1990, Medical physics.

[5]  R M Harrison,et al.  Quality assurance for MRI: practical experience. , 2000, The British journal of radiology.

[6]  Geoffrey D Clarke,et al.  Practical aspects of functional MRI (NMR Task Group #8). , 2002, Medical physics.

[7]  J. D. de Certaines,et al.  Safety aspects and quality assessment in MRI and MRS: A challenge for health care systems in Europe , 2001, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  J. D. de Certaines,et al.  Performance assessment and quality control in MRI by Eurospin test objects and protocols. , 1993, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[9]  D. Ortendahl,et al.  Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. , 1989, Radiology.

[10]  D Gibon,et al.  Automatic quality assessment protocol for MRI equipment. , 1999, Medical physics.

[11]  S K Mun,et al.  Acceptance testing of magnetic resonance imaging systems: report of AAPM Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Task Group No. 6. , 1992, Medical physics.

[12]  Yu-Chung N. Cheng,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Physical Principles and Sequence Design , 1999 .

[13]  P L Carson,et al.  Detection of degradation of magnetic resonance (MR) images: comparison of an automated MR image-quality analysis system with trained human observers. , 1995, Academic radiology.