PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of combining the inner-volume-imaging (IVI) technique with single-shot diffusion-weighted (DW) spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) and DW-SPLICE (split acquisition of fast spin-echo) sequences for renal DW imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Renal DWI was performed in 10 healthy volunteers using single-shot DW-SE-EPI, DW-SPLICE, targeted-DW-SE-EPI, and targeted-DW-SPLICE. We compared the quantitative diffusion measurement accuracy and image quality of these targeted-DW-SE-EPI and targeted DW-SPLICE methods with conventional full field of view (FOV) DW-SE-EPI and DW-SPLICE measurements in phantoms and normal volunteers. RESULTS: Compared with full FOV DW-SE-EPI and DW-SPLICE methods, targeted-DW-SE-EPI and targeted-DW-SPLICE approaches produced images of superior overall quality with fewer artifacts, less distortion, and reduced spatial blurring in both phantom and volunteer studies. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values measured with each of the four methods were similar and in agreement with previously published data. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADC values and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) measurements in the kidney cortex and medulla using single-shot DW-SE-EPI, targeted-DW-EPI, and targeted-DW-SPLICE (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with full-FOV DWI methods, targeted-DW-SE-EPI and targeted-DW-SPLICE techniques reduced image distortion and artifacts observed in the single-shot DW-SE-EPI images, reduced blurring in DW-SPLICE images, and produced comparable quantitative DW and IVIM measurements to those produced with conventional full-FOV approaches.
PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of combining the inner-volume-imaging (IVI) technique with single-shot diffusion-weighted (DW) spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) and DW-SPLICE (split acquisition of fast spin-echo) sequences for renal DW imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Renal DWI was performed in 10 healthy volunteers using single-shot DW-SE-EPI, DW-SPLICE, targeted-DW-SE-EPI, and targeted-DW-SPLICE. We compared the quantitative diffusion measurement accuracy and image quality of these targeted-DW-SE-EPI and targeted DW-SPLICE methods with conventional full field of view (FOV) DW-SE-EPI and DW-SPLICE measurements in phantoms and normal volunteers. RESULTS: Compared with full FOV DW-SE-EPI and DW-SPLICE methods, targeted-DW-SE-EPI and targeted-DW-SPLICE approaches produced images of superior overall quality with fewer artifacts, less distortion, and reduced spatial blurring in both phantom and volunteer studies. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values measured with each of the four methods were similar and in agreement with previously published data. There were no statistically significant differences between the ADC values and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) measurements in the kidney cortex and medulla using single-shot DW-SE-EPI, targeted-DW-EPI, and targeted-DW-SPLICE (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Compared with full-FOV DWI methods, targeted-DW-SE-EPI and targeted-DW-SPLICE techniques reduced image distortion and artifacts observed in the single-shot DW-SE-EPI images, reduced blurring in DW-SPLICE images, and produced comparable quantitative DW and IVIM measurements to those produced with conventional full-FOV approaches.
Authors: Roland Bammer; Martin Auer; Stephen L Keeling; Michael Augustin; Lara A Stables; Rupert W Prokesch; Rudolf Stollberger; Michael E Moseley; Franz Fazekas Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: H Zimmermann; S Müller; B Gutmann; H Bardenheuer; A Melzer; R Umathum; W Nitz; W Semmler; M Bock Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Emine Ulku Saritas; Charles H Cunningham; Jin Hyung Lee; Eric T Han; Dwight G Nishimura Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Zhuoli Zhang; Linfeng Zheng; Weiguo Li; Andrew C Gordon; Yi Huan; Junjie Shangguan; Daniel Procissi; David J Bentrem; Andrew C Larson Journal: Am J Transl Res Date: 2015-09-15 Impact factor: 4.060
Authors: Anna M Brown; Sidhartha Nagala; Mary A McLean; Yonggang Lu; Daniel Scoffings; Aditya Apte; Mithat Gonen; Hilda E Stambuk; Ashok R Shaha; R Michael Tuttle; Joseph O Deasy; Andrew N Priest; Piyush Jani; Amita Shukla-Dave; John Griffiths Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Rachel W Chan; Constantin Von Deuster; Christian T Stoeck; Jack Harmer; Shonit Punwani; Navin Ramachandran; Sebastian Kozerke; David Atkinson Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Oliver J Gurney-Champion; Susanne S Rauh; Kevin Harrington; Uwe Oelfke; Frederik B Laun; Andreas Wetscherek Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-09-30 Impact factor: 4.668