PURPOSE: To compare susceptibility effects in hyperpolarized (3)He lung MRI at the clinically relevant field strengths of 1.5T and 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Susceptibility-related B(0) inhomogeneity was evaluated on a macroscopic scale by B(0) field mapping via phase difference. Subpixel susceptibility effects were quantified by mapping T2. Comparison was made between ventilation images obtained from the same volunteers at both field strengths. RESULTS: The B(0) maps at 3T show enhanced off-resonance effects close to the diaphragm and the ribs due to susceptibility differences. The average T2 from a voxel (20 x 4 x 4) mm(3) was determined as T2 = 27.8 msec +/- 1.2 msec at 1.5T compared to T2 = 14.4 msec +/- 2.6 msec at 3T. In ventilation images the most prominent effect is increased signal attenuation close to the intrapulmonary blood vessels at higher B(0). CONCLUSION: Image homogeneity and T2 are lower at 3T due to increased B(0) inhomogeneity as a consequence of susceptibility differences. These findings indicate that (3)He imaging at 3T has no obvious benefit over imaging at 1.5T, as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was comparable for both fields in this work. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare susceptibility effects in hyperpolarized (3)He lung MRI at the clinically relevant field strengths of 1.5T and 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Susceptibility-related B(0) inhomogeneity was evaluated on a macroscopic scale by B(0) field mapping via phase difference. Subpixel susceptibility effects were quantified by mapping T2. Comparison was made between ventilation images obtained from the same volunteers at both field strengths. RESULTS: The B(0) maps at 3T show enhanced off-resonance effects close to the diaphragm and the ribs due to susceptibility differences. The average T2 from a voxel (20 x 4 x 4) mm(3) was determined as T2 = 27.8 msec +/- 1.2 msec at 1.5T compared to T2 = 14.4 msec +/- 2.6 msec at 3T. In ventilation images the most prominent effect is increased signal attenuation close to the intrapulmonary blood vessels at higher B(0). CONCLUSION: Image homogeneity and T2 are lower at 3T due to increased B(0) inhomogeneity as a consequence of susceptibility differences. These findings indicate that (3)He imaging at 3T has no obvious benefit over imaging at 1.5T, as signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) was comparable for both fields in this work. (c) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Peter Komlosi; Talissa A Altes; Kun Qing; Karen E Mooney; G Wilson Miller; Jaime F Mata; Eduard E de Lange; William A Tobias; Gordon D Cates; John P Mugler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-10-28 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: David J Niles; Stanley J Kruger; Bernard J Dardzinski; Amy Harman; Nizar N Jarjour; Marcella Ruddy; Scott K Nagle; Christopher J François; Sean B Fain Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-11-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter J Niedbalski; Alexander S Cochran; Teckla G Akinyi; Robert P Thomen; Elizabeth M Fugate; Diana M Lindquist; Ronald G Pratt; Zackary I Cleveland Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2020-04-14 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Catherine J Moran; Ethan K Brodsky; Leah Henze Bancroft; Scott B Reeder; Huanzhou Yu; Richard Kijowski; Dorothee Engel; Walter F Block Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-03-15 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ozkan Doganay; Tahreema N Matin; Anthony Mcintyre; Brian Burns; Rolf F Schulte; Fergus V Gleeson; Daniel Bulte Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-09-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Neil J Stewart; Ho-Fung Chan; Paul J C Hughes; Felix C Horn; Graham Norquay; Madhwesha Rao; Denise P Yates; Rob H Ireland; Matthew Q Hatton; Bilal A Tahir; Paul Ford; Andrew J Swift; Rod Lawson; Helen Marshall; Guilhem J Collier; Jim M Wild Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-03-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Neil J Stewart; Laurie J Smith; Ho-Fung Chan; James A Eaden; Smitha Rajaram; Andrew J Swift; Nicholas D Weatherley; Alberto Biancardi; Guilhem J Collier; David Hughes; Gill Klafkowski; Christopher S Johns; Noreen West; Kelechi Ugonna; Stephen M Bianchi; Rod Lawson; Ian Sabroe; Helen Marshall; Jim M Wild Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-06-09 Impact factor: 3.629