Ken-Pin Hwang1, R. Jason Stafford2, Joshua Yung2, and Aradhana M. Venkatesan3
1The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, 2Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, 3Department of Abdominal Radiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
1The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, 2Department of Imaging Physics, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States, 3Department of Abdominal Radiology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, United States
Temperature dependence of ADC can complicate quality assurance of quantitative imaging across multiple systems. ADC measurements normalized to values predicted by a model can reduce the variance due to temperature when all other factors are accounted for.
Figure 3. Percent difference between ADC values measured at 3T and model predicted values at 20°C for all measurements (left) and individual measured temperatures per measurement (right).
Figure 1. Example trace (left) and ADC (right) images of the NIST / QIBA diffusion phantom acquired at 1.5T.