PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine whether a sodium phased array would improve sodium breast MRI at 3 T. The secondary objective was to create acceptable proton images with the sodium phased array in place. METHODS: A novel composite array for combined proton/sodium 3 T breast MRI is compared with a coil with a single proton and sodium channel. The composite array consists of a 7-channel sodium receive array, a larger sodium transmit coil, and a 4-channel proton transceive array. The new composite array design utilizes smaller sodium receive loops than typically used in sodium imaging, uses novel decoupling methods between the receive loops and transmit loops, and uses a novel multichannel proton transceive coil. The proton transceive coil reduces coupling between proton and sodium elements by intersecting the constituent loops to reduce their mutual inductance. The coil used for comparison consists of a concentric sodium and proton loop with passive decoupling traps. RESULTS: The composite array coil demonstrates a 2-5× improvement in signal-to-noise ratio for sodium imaging and similar signal-to-noise ratio for proton imaging when compared with a simple single-loop dual resonant design. CONCLUSION: The improved signal-to-noise ratio of the composite array gives breast sodium images of unprecedented quality in reasonable scan times.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to determine whether a sodium phased array would improve sodium breast MRI at 3 T. The secondary objective was to create acceptable proton images with the sodium phased array in place. METHODS: A novel composite array for combined proton/sodium 3 T breast MRI is compared with a coil with a single proton and sodium channel. The composite array consists of a 7-channel sodium receive array, a larger sodium transmit coil, and a 4-channel proton transceive array. The new composite array design utilizes smaller sodium receive loops than typically used in sodium imaging, uses novel decoupling methods between the receive loops and transmit loops, and uses a novel multichannel proton transceive coil. The proton transceive coil reduces coupling between proton and sodium elements by intersecting the constituent loops to reduce their mutual inductance. The coil used for comparison consists of a concentric sodium and proton loop with passive decoupling traps. RESULTS: The composite array coil demonstrates a 2-5× improvement in signal-to-noise ratio for sodium imaging and similar signal-to-noise ratio for proton imaging when compared with a simple single-loop dual resonant design. CONCLUSION: The improved signal-to-noise ratio of the composite array gives breast sodium images of unprecedented quality in reasonable scan times.
Authors: Ernesto Staroswiecki; Neal K Bangerter; Paul T Gurney; Thomas Grafendorfer; Garry E Gold; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Michael A Jacobs; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Katarzyna Macura; Pedram Argani; Nagi Khouri; Theodore Tsangaris; Peter B Barker; Nancy E Davidson; Zaver M Bhujwalla; David A Bluemke; Ronald Ouwerkerk Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Steven P Allen; Glen R Morrell; Brock Peterson; Danny Park; Garry E Gold; Joshua D Kaggie; Neal K Bangerter Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-11-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ahmedin Jemal; Freddie Bray; Melissa M Center; Jacques Ferlay; Elizabeth Ward; David Forman Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2011-02-04 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Ronald Ouwerkerk; Michael A Jacobs; Katarzyna J Macura; Antonio C Wolff; Vered Stearns; Sarah D Mezban; Nagi F Khouri; David A Bluemke; Paul A Bottomley Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-01-27 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Graham C Wiggins; Jonathan R Polimeni; Andreas Potthast; Melanie Schmitt; Vijay Alagappan; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ryan Brown; Karthik Lakshmanan; Guillaume Madelin; Leeor Alon; Gregory Chang; Daniel K Sodickson; Ravinder R Regatte; Graham C Wiggins Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-10-26 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Bili Wang; Bei Zhang; Zidan Yu; Carlotta Ianniello; Karthik Lakshmanan; Jan Paska; Guillaume Madelin; Martijn Cloos; Ryan Brown Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2021-09-03 Impact factor: 4.478
Authors: Matthew Wilcox; Stephen Ogier; Sergey Cheshkov; Ivan Dimitrov; Craig Malloy; Steven Wright; Mary McDougall Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 4.756