Literature DB >> 18789840

Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0T and 1.5T MR imaging of the liver in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease.

Masakatsu Tsurusaki1, Richard C Semelka, Mauricio Zapparoli, Jorge Elias, Ersan Altun, Ertan Pamuklar, Kazuro Sugimura.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of our study was to compare signal characteristics and image qualities of MR imaging at 3.0T and 1.5T in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 25 consecutive patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease underwent abdominal MR imaging at both 3.0T and 1.5T within a 6-month interval. A retrospective study was conducted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data from both 3.0T and 1.5T MRI. Quantitative image analysis was performed by measuring the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and the contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) by the Students t-test. Qualitative image analysis was assessed by grading each sequence on a 3- and 4-point scale, regarding the presence of artifacts and image quality, respectively. Statistical analysis consisted of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: the mean SNRs and CNRs of the liver parenchyma and the portal vein were significantly higher at 3.0T than at 1.5T on portal and equilibrium phases of volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) images (P<0.05). The mean SNRs were significantly higher at 3.0T than at 1.5T on T1-weighted spoiled gradient echo (SGE) images (P<0.05). However, there were no significantly differences on T2-weighted short-inversion-time inversion recovery (STIR) images. Overall image qualities of the 1.5T non-contrast T1- and T2-weighted sequences were significantly better than 3.0T (P<0.01). In contrast, overall image quality of the 3.0T post-gadolinium VIBE sequence was significantly better than 1.5T (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: MR imaging of post-gadolinium VIBE sequence at 3.0T has quantitative and qualitative advantages of evaluating for diffuse parenchymal liver disease.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18789840     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Radiol        ISSN: 0720-048X            Impact factor:   3.528


  7 in total

1.  3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: A new standard in liver imaging?

Authors:  Rossano Girometti
Journal:  World J Hepatol       Date:  2015-07-28

2.  Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI T1 mapping for assessment of liver function in rabbit fibrosis model: comparison of hepatobiliary phase images obtained at 10 and 20 min.

Authors:  Zhi-Peng Zhou; Li-Ling Long; Li-Juan Huang; Teng-Fei Yang; Zhong-Kui Huang
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 3.469

3.  Accelerated single-shot T2-weighted fat-suppressed (FS) MRI of the liver with deep learning-based image reconstruction: qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality with conventional T2-weighted FS sequence.

Authors:  Krishna Shanbhogue; Angela Tong; Paul Smereka; Dominik Nickel; Simon Arberet; Rebecca Anthopolos; Hersh Chandarana
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2021-05-07       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced 3.0 T MR imaging: quantitative and qualitative comparison of hepatocyte-phase images obtained 10 min and 20 min after injection for the detection of liver metastases from colorectal carcinoma.

Authors:  Keitaro Sofue; Masakatsu Tsurusaki; Hiroyuki Tokue; Yasuaki Arai; Kazuro Sugimura
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography with histopathological examinations for the identification of hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter phase III study.

Authors:  Masakatsu Tsurusaki; Keitaro Sofue; Hiroyoshi Isoda; Masahiro Okada; Kazuhiro Kitajima; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 7.527

6.  Comparison of gadoxetic acid-enhanced dynamic MR imaging and contrast-enhanced computed tomography for preoperative evaluation of colorectal liver metastases.

Authors:  Nobuyuki Asato; Masakatsu Tsurusaki; Keitaro Sofue; Yoko Hieda; Takashi Katsube; Kazuhiro Kitajima; Takamichi Murakami
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  1.5 versus 3 versus 7 Tesla in abdominal MRI: A comparative study.

Authors:  Anja Laader; Karsten Beiderwellen; Oliver Kraff; Stefan Maderwald; Karsten Wrede; Mark E Ladd; Thomas C Lauenstein; Michael Forsting; Harald H Quick; Kai Nassenstein; Lale Umutlu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-11-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.