BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: RS-EPI has been suggested as an alternative approach to EPI for high-resolution DWI with reduced distortions. To determine whether RS-EPI is a useful approach for routine clinical use, we implemented GRAPPA-accelerated RS-EPI DWI at our pediatric hospital and graded the images alongside standard accelerated (ASSET) EPI DWI used routinely for clinical studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GRAPPA-accelerated RS-EPI DWIs and ASSET EPI DWIs were acquired on 35 pediatric patients using a 3T system in 35 pediatric patients. The images were graded alongside each other by using a 7-point Likert scale as follows: 1, nondiagnostic; 2, poor; 3, acceptable; 4, standard; 5, above average; 6, good; and 7, outstanding. RESULTS: The following were the average scores for EPI and RS-EPI, respectively: resolution, 3.5/5.2; distortion level, 2.9/6.0; SNR, 3.4/4.1; lesion conspicuity, 3.3/5.9; and diagnostic confidence, 3.2/6.0. Overall, the RS-EPI had significantly improved diagnostic confidence and more reliably defined the extent and structure of several lesions. Although ASSET EPI scans had better SNR per scanning time, the higher spatial resolution as well as reduced blurring and distortions on RS-EPI scans helped to better reveal important anatomic details at the cortical-subcortical levels, brain stem, temporal and inferior frontal lobes, skull base, sinonasal cavity, cranial nerves, and orbits. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows the importance of both resolution and decreased distortions in the clinics, which can be accomplished by a combination of parallel imaging and alternative k-space trajectories such as RS-EPI.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:RS-EPI has been suggested as an alternative approach to EPI for high-resolution DWI with reduced distortions. To determine whether RS-EPI is a useful approach for routine clinical use, we implemented GRAPPA-accelerated RS-EPI DWI at our pediatric hospital and graded the images alongside standard accelerated (ASSET) EPI DWI used routinely for clinical studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GRAPPA-accelerated RS-EPI DWIs and ASSET EPI DWIs were acquired on 35 pediatric patients using a 3T system in 35 pediatric patients. The images were graded alongside each other by using a 7-point Likert scale as follows: 1, nondiagnostic; 2, poor; 3, acceptable; 4, standard; 5, above average; 6, good; and 7, outstanding. RESULTS: The following were the average scores for EPI and RS-EPI, respectively: resolution, 3.5/5.2; distortion level, 2.9/6.0; SNR, 3.4/4.1; lesion conspicuity, 3.3/5.9; and diagnostic confidence, 3.2/6.0. Overall, the RS-EPI had significantly improved diagnostic confidence and more reliably defined the extent and structure of several lesions. Although ASSET EPI scans had better SNR per scanning time, the higher spatial resolution as well as reduced blurring and distortions on RS-EPI scans helped to better reveal important anatomic details at the cortical-subcortical levels, brain stem, temporal and inferior frontal lobes, skull base, sinonasal cavity, cranial nerves, and orbits. CONCLUSIONS: This work shows the importance of both resolution and decreased distortions in the clinics, which can be accomplished by a combination of parallel imaging and alternative k-space trajectories such as RS-EPI.
Authors: Pippa Storey; Fred J Frigo; R Scott Hinks; Bryan J Mock; Bruce D Collick; Nicole Baker; Jonathan Marmurek; Simon J Graham Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: R Kapur; A R Sepahdari; M F Mafee; A M Putterman; V Aakalu; L J A Wendel; P Setabutr Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2008-10-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Ali R Sepahdari; Vinay K Aakalu; Rashmi Kapur; Edward A Michals; Nitu Saran; Adam French; Mahmood F Mafee Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Claudia A M Wheeler-Kingshott; Geoffrey J M Parker; Mark R Symms; Simon J Hickman; Paul S Tofts; David H Miller; Gareth J Barker Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: J B Andre; G Zaharchuk; N J Fischbein; M Augustin; S Skare; M Straka; J Rosenberg; M G Lansberg; S Kemp; C A C Wijman; G W Albers; N E Schwartz; R Bammer Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Gil-Sun Hong; Choong Wook Lee; Mi-Hyun Kim; Seung Won Jang; Sae Rom Chung; Ga Young Yoon; Jeong Kon Kim Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-05-10 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andriy Fedorov; Kemal Tuncali; Lawrence P Panych; Janice Fairhurst; Elmira Hassanzadeh; Ravi T Seethamraju; Clare M Tempany; Stephan E Maier Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-05-27 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Myung-Ho In; Ek Tsoon Tan; Joshua D Trzasko; Yunhong Shu; Daehun Kang; Uten Yarach; Shengzhen Tao; Erin M Gray; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Dorota J Wisner; Nathan Rogers; Vibhas S Deshpande; David N Newitt; Gerhard A Laub; David A Porter; John Kornak; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 4.813