Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Technical recommendations for clinical translation of renal MRI: a consensus project of the Cooperation in Science and Technology Action PARENCHIMA.

  • Mendichovszky, Iosif1
  • Pullens, Pim2
  • Dekkers, Ilona3
  • Nery, Fabio4
  • Bane, Octavia5
  • Pohlmann, Andreas6
  • de Boer, Anneloes7
  • Ljimani, Alexandra8
  • Odudu, Aghogho9
  • Buchanan, Charlotte10
  • Sharma, Kanishka11
  • Laustsen, Christoffer12
  • Harteveld, Anita7
  • Golay, Xavier13
  • Pedrosa, Ivan14
  • Alsop, David15
  • Fain, Sean16
  • Caroli, Anna17
  • Prasad, Pottumarthi18
  • Francis, Susan10
  • And 3 more
  • 1 Department of Radiology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
  • 2 Department of Radiology, Ghent University Hospital and Ghent Institute for Functional and Metabolic Imaging, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. , (Belgium)
  • 3 Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. , (Netherlands)
  • 4 Developmental Imaging and Biophysics Section, UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health, London, UK.
  • 5 Translational and Molecular Imaging Institute and Department of Radiology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
  • 6 Berlin Ultrahigh Field Facility, Max Delbrueck Center for Molecular Medicine in the Helmholtz Association, Berlin, Germany. , (Germany)
  • 7 Department of Radiology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. , (Netherlands)
  • 8 Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Medical Faculty, University Dusseldorf, 40225, Dusseldorf, Germany. , (Germany)
  • 9 Division of Cardiovascular Sciences, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
  • 10 Sir Peter Mansfield Imaging Centre, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, UK.
  • 11 Imaging Biomarkers Group, Department of Biomedical Imaging Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
  • 12 Department of Clinical Medicine, MR Research Centre, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. , (Denmark)
  • 13 Brain Repair and Rehabilitation, Institute of Neurology, University College London, London, UK.
  • 14 Department of Radiology, Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, USA.
  • 15 Department of Radiology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. , (Israel)
  • 16 Departments of Biomedical Engineering, Radiology, and Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
  • 17 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Bergamo, Italy. , (Italy)
  • 18 Department of Radiology, Center for Advanced MR Research, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA.
  • 19 Department of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging (CBI), Center for Advanced Imaging Innovation and Research (CAI2R), NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, USA.
  • 20 Department of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. , (Spain)
  • 21 Imaging Biomarkers Group, Department of Biomedical Imaging Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. [email protected]
Published Article
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics Biology and Medicine
Publication Date
Feb 01, 2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10334-019-00784-w
PMID: 31628564


The potential of renal MRI biomarkers has been increasingly recognised, but clinical translation requires more standardisation. The PARENCHIMA consensus project aims to develop and apply a process for generating technical recommendations on renal MRI. A task force was formed in July 2018 focused on five methods. A draft process for attaining consensus was distributed publicly for consultation and finalised at an open meeting (Prague, October 2018). Four expert panels completed surveys between October 2018 and March 2019, discussed results and refined the surveys at a face-to-face meeting (Aarhus, March 2019) and completed a second round (May 2019). A seven-stage process was defined: (1) formation of expert panels; (2) definition of the context of use; (3) literature review; (4) collection and comparison of MRI protocols; (5) consensus generation by an approximate Delphi method; (6) reporting of results in vendor-neutral and vendor-specific terms; (7) ongoing review and updating. Application of the process resulted in 166 consensus statements. The process generated meaningful technical recommendations across very different MRI methods, while allowing for improvement and refinement as open issues are resolved. The results are likely to be widely supported by the renal MRI community and thereby promote more harmonisation.

Report this publication


Seen <100 times