Peder E Z Larson1,2,3, Misung Han4, Roland Krug4, Angela Jakary4, Sarah J Nelson4,5,6, Daniel B Vigneron4,5,6, Roland G Henry4,7, Graeme McKinnon8, Douglas A C Kelley8. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California - San Francisco, Byers Hall, Rm 102C, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. peder.larson@ucsf.edu. 2. UC Berkeley-UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. peder.larson@ucsf.edu. 3. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. peder.larson@ucsf.edu. 4. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California - San Francisco, Byers Hall, Rm 102C, 1700 4th St, San Francisco, CA, 94158, USA. 5. UC Berkeley-UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 6. University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA. 7. Department of Neurology, University of California - San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA. 8. GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Zero echo time (ZTE) and ultrashort echo time (UTE) pulse sequences for MRI offer unique advantages of being able to detect signal from rapidly decaying short-T2 tissue components. In this paper, we applied 3D ZTE and UTE pulse sequences at 7T to assess differences between these methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We matched the ZTE and UTE pulse sequences closely in terms of readout trajectories and image contrast. Our ZTE used the water- and fat-suppressed solid-state proton projection imaging method to fill the center of k-space. Images from healthy volunteers obtained at 7T were compared qualitatively, as well as with SNR and CNR measurements for various ultrashort, short, and long-T2 tissues. RESULTS: We measured nearly identical contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios (CNR/SNR) in similar scan times between the two approaches for ultrashort, short, and long-T2 components in the brain, knee and ankle. In our protocol, we observed gradient fidelity artifacts in UTE, and our chosen flip angle and readout also resulted in shading artifacts in ZTE due to inadvertent spatial selectivity. These can be corrected by advanced reconstruction methods or with different chosen protocol parameters. CONCLUSION: The applied ZTE and UTE pulse sequences achieved similar contrast and SNR efficiency for volumetric imaging of ultrashort-T2 components. Key differences include that ZTE is limited to volumetric imaging, but has substantially reduced acoustic noise levels during the scan. Meanwhile, UTE has higher acoustic noise levels and greater sensitivity to gradient fidelity, but offers more flexibility in image contrast and volume selection.
OBJECTIVE: Zero echo time (ZTE) and ultrashort echo time (UTE) pulse sequences for MRI offer unique advantages of being able to detect signal from rapidly decaying short-T2 tissue components. In this paper, we applied 3D ZTE and UTE pulse sequences at 7T to assess differences between these methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We matched the ZTE and UTE pulse sequences closely in terms of readout trajectories and image contrast. Our ZTE used the water- and fat-suppressed solid-state proton projection imaging method to fill the center of k-space. Images from healthy volunteers obtained at 7T were compared qualitatively, as well as with SNR and CNR measurements for various ultrashort, short, and long-T2 tissues. RESULTS: We measured nearly identical contrast-to-noise and signal-to-noise ratios (CNR/SNR) in similar scan times between the two approaches for ultrashort, short, and long-T2 components in the brain, knee and ankle. In our protocol, we observed gradient fidelity artifacts in UTE, and our chosen flip angle and readout also resulted in shading artifacts in ZTE due to inadvertent spatial selectivity. These can be corrected by advanced reconstruction methods or with different chosen protocol parameters. CONCLUSION: The applied ZTE and UTE pulse sequences achieved similar contrast and SNR efficiency for volumetric imaging of ultrashort-T2 components. Key differences include that ZTE is limited to volumetric imaging, but has substantially reduced acoustic noise levels during the scan. Meanwhile, UTE has higher acoustic noise levels and greater sensitivity to gradient fidelity, but offers more flexibility in image contrast and volume selection.
Entities:
Keywords:
Magnetic resonance imaging; Musculoskeletal system; Neuroimaging
Authors: Cheng Li; Jeremy F Magland; Hamidreza Saligheh Rad; Hee Kwon Song; Felix W Wehrli Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-12-08 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jiang Du; Michael Carl; Mark Bydder; Atsushi Takahashi; Christine B Chung; Graeme M Bydder Journal: J Magn Reson Date: 2010-09-25 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Vincent Keereman; Yves Fierens; Tom Broux; Yves De Deene; Max Lonneux; Stefaan Vandenberghe Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2010-05 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Yaotang Wu; Guangping Dai; Jerome L Ackerman; Mirko I Hrovat; Melvin J Glimcher; Brian D Snyder; Ara Nazarian; David A Chesler Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Vladimir Juras; Stefan Zbyn; Christina Pressl; Ladislav Valkovic; Pavol Szomolanyi; Ivan Frollo; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2012-01-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jaewon Yang; Florian Wiesinger; Sandeep Kaushik; Dattesh Shanbhag; Thomas A Hope; Peder E Z Larson; Youngho Seo Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Lindsay K Hill; Joseph A Frezzo; Priya Katyal; Dung Minh Hoang; Zakia Ben Youss Gironda; Cynthia Xu; Xuan Xie; Erika Delgado-Fukushima; Youssef Z Wadghiri; Jin Kim Montclare Journal: ACS Nano Date: 2019-02-19 Impact factor: 15.881
Authors: Hongjiang Wei; Peng Cao; Antje Bischof; Roland G Henry; Peder E Z Larson; Chunlei Liu Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 6.556