Accuracy and repeatability of QRAPMASTER and MRF-vFA

Our purpose is to evaluate bias and repeatability of the quantitative MRI sequences QRAPMASTER, based on steady-state imaging, and variable Flip Angle MRF (MRF-VFA), based on the transient response. Both techniques are assessed with a standardized phantom and five volunteers on 1.5 T and 3 T clinical scanners. All scans were repeated eight times in consecutive weeks. In the phantom, the mean bias±95% confidence interval for T1 values with QRAPMASTER was 10 ± 10% on 1.5 T and 4 ± 13% on 3.0 T. The mean bias for T1 values with MRF-vFA was 21 ± 17% on 1.5 T and 9 ± 9% on 3.0 T. For T2 values the mean bias with QRAPMASTER was 12 ± 3% on 1.5 T and 23 ± 1% on 3.0 T. For T2 values the mean bias with MRF-vFA was 17 ± 1% on 1.5 T and 19 ± 2% on 3.0 T. QRAPMASTER estimated lower T1 and T2 values than MRF-vFA. Repeatability was good with low coefficients of variation (CoV). Mean CoV ± 95% confidence interval for T1 were 3.2 ± 0.4% on 1.5 T and 4.5 ± 0.8% on 3.0 T with QRAPMASTER and 2.7% ± 0.2% on 1.5 T and 2.5 ± 0.2% on 3.0 T with MRF-vFA. For T2 were 3.3 ± 1.9% on 1.5 T and 3.2 ± 0.6% on 3.0 T with QRAPMASTER and 2.0 ± 0.4% on 1.5 T and 5.7 ± 1.0% on 3.0 T with MRF-vFA. The in-vivo T1 and T2 are in the range of values previously reported by other authors. The in-vivo mean CoV ± 95% confidence interval in gray matter were for T1 1.7 ± 0.2% using QRAPMASTER and 0.7 ± 0.5% using MRF-vFA and for T2 were 0.9 ± 0.4% using QRAPMASTER and 2.4 ± 0.5% using MRF-vFA. In white matter were for T1 0.9 ± 0.3% using QRAPMASTER and 1.3 ± 1.1% using MRF-vFA and for T2 were 0.7 ± 0.4% using QRAPMASTER and 2.4 ± 0.4% using MRF-vFA. A GLM analysis showed that the variations in T1 and T2 mainly depend on the field strength and the subject, but not on the follow-up repetition in different days. This confirms the high repeatability of QRAPMASTER and MRF-vFA. In summary, QRAPMASTER and MRF-vFA on both systems were highly repeatable with moderate accuracy, providing results comparable to standard references. While repeatability was similar for both methods, QRAPMASTER was more accurate. QRAPMASTER is a tested commercial product but MRF-vFA is 4.77 times faster, which would ease the inclusion of quantitative relaxometry.