Philipp Riffel1, Raghuram K Rao, Stefan Haneder, Mathias Meyer, Stefan O Schoenberg, Henrik J Michaely. 1. Philipp Riffel, Raghuram K Rao, Stefan Haneder, Mathias Meyer, Stefan O Schoenberg, Henrik J Michaely, Department of Clinical Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim-Heidelberg University, D-68167 Mannheim, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: To retrospectively and prospectively compare diffusion-weighted (DW) images in the abdomen in a 1.5T system and 3.0T systems with and without two-channel functionality for B1 shimming. METHODS: DW images of the abdomen were obtained on 1.5T and 3.0T (with and without two-channel functionality for B1 shimming) scanners on 150 patients (retrospective study population) and 10 volunteers (prospective study population). Eight regions were selected for clinical significance or artifact susceptibility (at higher field strengths). Objective grading quantified signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and subjective evaluation qualified image quality, ghosting artifacts, and diagnostic value. Statistical significance was calculated using χ(2) tests (categorical variables) and independent two-sided t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests (continuous variables). RESULTS: The 3.0T using dual-source parallel transmit (dpTX 3.0T) provided the significantly highest SNRs in nearly all regions. In regions susceptible to artifacts at higher field strengths (left lobe of liver, head of pancreas), the SNR was better or similar to the 1.5T system. Subjectively, both dpTX 3.0T and 1.5T systems provided higher image quality, diagnostic value, and less ghosting artifact (P < 0.01, most values) compared to the 3.0T system without dual-source parallel transmit (non-dpTX 3.0T). CONCLUSION: The dpTX 3.0T scanner provided the highest SNR. Its image quality, lack of ghosting, and diagnostic value were equal to or outperformed most currently used systems.
AIM: To retrospectively and prospectively compare diffusion-weighted (DW) images in the abdomen in a 1.5T system and 3.0T systems with and without two-channel functionality for B1 shimming. METHODS: DW images of the abdomen were obtained on 1.5T and 3.0T (with and without two-channel functionality for B1 shimming) scanners on 150 patients (retrospective study population) and 10 volunteers (prospective study population). Eight regions were selected for clinical significance or artifact susceptibility (at higher field strengths). Objective grading quantified signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and subjective evaluation qualified image quality, ghosting artifacts, and diagnostic value. Statistical significance was calculated using χ(2) tests (categorical variables) and independent two-sided t tests or Mann-Whitney U tests (continuous variables). RESULTS: The 3.0T using dual-source parallel transmit (dpTX 3.0T) provided the significantly highest SNRs in nearly all regions. In regions susceptible to artifacts at higher field strengths (left lobe of liver, head of pancreas), the SNR was better or similar to the 1.5T system. Subjectively, both dpTX 3.0T and 1.5T systems provided higher image quality, diagnostic value, and less ghosting artifact (P < 0.01, most values) compared to the 3.0T system without dual-source parallel transmit (non-dpTX 3.0T). CONCLUSION: The dpTX 3.0T scanner provided the highest SNR. Its image quality, lack of ghosting, and diagnostic value were equal to or outperformed most currently used systems.
Entities:
Keywords:
3.0T; Abdominal imaging; Diffusion weighted; Radiofrequency excitation; Signal-to-noise ratio
Authors: Yi Wang; Zongming E Chen; Paul Nikolaidis; Robert J McCarthy; Laura Merrick; Laura A Sternick; Jeanne M Horowitz; Vahid Yaghmai; Frank H Miller Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Bernd J Wintersperger; Val M Runge; Jonmenjoy Biswas; C Brett Nelson; Alto Stemmer; Alexander B Simonetta; Maximilian F Reiser; L G Naul; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2006-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Guido M Kukuk; Jürgen Gieseke; Sebastian Weber; Dariusch R Hadizadeh; Michael Nelles; Frank Träber; Hans H Schild; Winfried A Willinek Journal: Radiology Date: 2011-02-17 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Tejas Parikh; Stephen J Drew; Vivian S Lee; Samson Wong; Elizabeth M Hecht; James S Babb; Bachir Taouli Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dow-Mu Koh; Matthew Blackledge; David J Collins; Anwar R Padhani; Toni Wallace; Benjamin Wilton; N Jane Taylor; J James Stirling; Rajesh Sinha; Pat Walicke; Martin O Leach; Ian Judson; Paul Nathan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-06-23 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Jie Zhu; Jie Zhang; Jia-Yin Gao; Jin-Ning Li; Da-Wei Yang; Min Chen; Cheng Zhou; Zheng-Han Yang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 1.889