Higher field reduced FOV diffusion-weighted imaging for abdominal imaging at 5.0 Tesla: image quality evaluation compared with 3.0 Tesla

被引:3
作者
Zhang, Yunfei [1 ,2 ]
Sheng, Ruofan [1 ,3 ]
Yang, Chun [1 ,3 ]
Dai, Yongming [4 ]
Zeng, Mengsu [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Fudan Univ, Shanghai Inst Med Imaging, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[2] United Imaging Healthcare, Cent Res Inst, Shanghai, Peoples R China
[3] Fudan Univ, Zhongshan Hosp, Dept Radiol, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
[4] ShanghaiTech Univ, Sch Biomed Engn, Shanghai 200032, Peoples R China
关键词
Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; 5.0; Tesla; Ultra-high-field MRI; Image quality; rFOV-DWI; OUTER-VOLUME SUPPRESSION; MRI; DWI; CARCINOMA; DISEASE; BRAIN;
D O I
10.1186/s13244-023-01513-7
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objective To evaluate the image quality of reduced field-of-view (rFOV) DWI for abdominal imaging at 5.0 Tesla (T) compared with 3.0 T.Methods Fifteen volunteers were included into this prospective study. All the subjects underwent the 3.0 T and 5.0 T MR examinations (time interval: 2 +/- 1.9 days). Free-breathing (FB), respiratory-triggered (RT), and navigator-triggered (NT) spin-echo echo-planner imaging-based rFOV-DWI examinations were conducted at 3.0 T and 5.0 T (FB3.0 T, NT3.0 T, RT3.0 T, FB5.0 T, NT5.0 T, and RT5.0 T) with two b values (b = 0 and 800 s/mm2), respectively. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of different acquisition approaches were determined and statistically compared. The image quality was assessed and statistically compared with a 5-point scoring system.Results The SNRs of any 5.0 T DWI images were significantly higher than those of any 3.0 T DWI images for same anatomic locations. Moreover, 5.0 T rFOV-DWIs had the significantly higher sharpness scores than 3.0 T rFOV-DWIs. Similar distortion scores were observed at both 3.0 T and 5.0 T. Finally, RT5.0 T displayed the best overall image quality followed by NT5.0 T, FB5.0 T, RT3.0 T, NT3.0 T and FB3.0 T (RT5.0 T = 3.9 +/- 0.3, NT5.0 T = 3.8 +/- 0.3, FB5.0 T = 3.4 +/- 0.3, RT3.0 T = 3.2 +/- 0.4, NT3.0 T = 3.1 +/- 0.4, and FB3.0 T = 2.7 +/- 0.4, p < 0.001).Conclusion The 5.0 T rFOV-DWI showed better overall image quality and improved SNR compared to 3.0 T rFOV-DWI, which holds clinical potential for identifying the abdominal abnormalities in routine practice.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [1] Assessment of Tumor Morphology on Diffusion- Weighted (DWI) Breast MRI: Diagnostic Value of Reduced Field of View DWI
    Barentsz, Maarten W.
    Taviani, Valentina
    Chang, Jung M.
    Ikeda, Debra M.
    Miyake, Kanae K.
    Banerjee, Suchandrima
    van den Bosch, Maurice A. A. J.
    Hargreaves, Brian A.
    Daniel, Bruce L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2015, 42 (06) : 1656 - 1665
  • [2] Clinical 7 T MRI: Are we there yet? A review about magnetic resonance imaging at ultra-high field
    Barisano, Giuseppe
    Sepehrband, Farshid
    Ma, Samantha
    Jann, Kay
    Cabeen, Ryan
    Wang, Danny J.
    Toga, Arthur W.
    Law, Meng
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2019, 92 (1094)
  • [3] Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-Tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease - A comparison with 1.5-Tesla
    Cheng, Adrian S. H.
    Pegg, Tammy J.
    Karamitsos, Theodoros D.
    Searle, Nick
    Jerosch-Herold, Michael
    Choudhury, Robin P.
    Adrian, P. Banning
    Neubauer, Stefan
    Robson, Matthew D.
    Selvanayagam, Joseph B.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY, 2007, 49 (25) : 2440 - 2449
  • [4] 9.4T and 17.6T MRI of Retinoblastoma: Ex Vivo evaluation of microstructural anatomy and disease extent compared with histopathology
    de Jong, Marcus C.
    de Graaf, Pim
    Pouwels, Petra J. W.
    Beenakker, Jan-Willem
    Jansen, Robin W.
    Geurts, Jeroen J. G.
    Moll, Annette C.
    Castelijns, Jonas A.
    van der Valk, Paul
    van der Weerd, Louise
    [J]. JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2018, 47 (06) : 1487 - 1497
  • [5] Diffusion-weighted MRI of solid pancreatic lesions: Comparison between reduced field-of-view and large field-of-view sequences
    Donati, Francescamaria
    Casini, Chiara
    Cervelli, Rosa
    Morganti, Riccardo
    Boraschi, Piero
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2021, 143
  • [6] Study of the Reduced Field-of-View Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Breast
    Dong, Haibo
    Li, Yadi
    Li, Hui
    Wang, Bo
    Hu, Bin
    [J]. CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2014, 14 (04) : 265 - 271
  • [7] Dula AN, 2010, IFMBE PROC, V27, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-12020-6_1
  • [8] Preoperatively Grading Rectal Cancer with the Combination of Intravoxel Incoherent Motions Imaging and Diffusion Kurtosis Imaging
    Geng, Zhijun
    Zhang, Yunfei
    Yin, Shaohan
    Lian, Shanshan
    He, Haoqiang
    Li, Hui
    Xie, Chuanmiao
    Dai, Yongming
    [J]. CONTRAST MEDIA & MOLECULAR IMAGING, 2020, 2020
  • [9] Qualitative and Quantitative Comparison of Respiratory Triggered Reduced Field-of-View (FOV) Versus Full FOV Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) in Pancreatic Pathologies
    Harder, Felix N.
    Kamal, Omar
    Kaissis, Georgios A.
    Heid, Irina
    Lohoefer, Fabian K.
    McTavish, Sean
    Van, Anh T.
    Katemann, Christoph
    Peeters, Johannes M.
    Karampinos, Dimitrios C.
    Makowski, Marcus R.
    Braren, Rickmer F.
    [J]. ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY, 2021, 28 : S234 - S243
  • [10] Isotropic submillimeter fMRI in the human brain at 7 T: Combining reduced field-of-view imaging and partially parallel acquisitions
    Heidemann, Robin M.
    Ivanov, Dimo
    Trampel, Robert
    Fasano, Fabrizio
    Meyer, Heiko
    Pfeuffer, Josef
    Turner, Robert
    [J]. MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2012, 68 (05) : 1506 - 1516