Qihua Yang1, Taihui Yu1, Su Yun1, Hui Zhang2, Xiaodong Chen1, Ziliang Cheng1, Jinglian Zhong1, Jingwen Huang1, Tomoyuki Okuaki3, Queenie Chan4, Biling Liang5, Hua Guo6. 1. Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Guang Zhou, Guang Dong, China. 2. Center for Biomedical Imaging Research, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. 3. Philips Healthcare, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Philips Healthcare, Hong Kong. 5. Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital, Guang Zhou, Guang Dong, China. liangbl@163.net. 6. Center for Biomedical Imaging Research, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China. huaguo@tsinghua.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare visual quality and quantitative measurements of multislice (MS) breath-hold and 3D respiratory-triggered T1 ρ sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1 ρ scans including MS BLOCK T1 ρ, MS HS8 T1 ρ, and 3D BLOCK T1 ρ were performed on 40 healthy volunteers and 17 liver cirrhosis patients on 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The MS breath-hold methods scanned three slices while the 3D method covered 26 slices. Visual scores of image quality, T1 ρ measurements of the three sequences, and T1 ρ values of healthy volunteers and cirrhosis patients were compared using parametric tests. RESULTS: Average visual scores for volunteers and patients of the three sequences were 3.19 and 2.82 for MS BLOCK T1 ρ; 3.71 and 3.59 for MS HS8 T1 ρ; 3.29 and 3.59 for 3D BLOCK T1 ρ, respectively. Difference of visual scores among the three groups was significant (P < 0.001). Differences in T1 ρ values among the three methods were significant (P < 0.001). Difference of T1 ρ between MS BLOCK T1 ρ and 3D BLOCK T1 ρ was not significant (volunteer: P = 0.82, patient: 0.92) while the difference of T1 ρ between MS BLOCK T1 ρ and MS HS8 T1 ρ, MS HS8 T1 ρ and 3D BLOCK T1 ρ was significant in both volunteers and patients (P < 0.01). Differences of T1 ρ between healthy volunteers and patients were all significant in three T1 ρ sequences (P = 0.04, 0.004, 0.03). CONCLUSION: Of the tested sequences, the image quality of MS HS8 T1 ρ was best, but 3D BLOCK T1 ρ with respiratory triggering should also be considered as an alternative sequence for clinical diagnosis of liver cirrhosis due to its superior coverage. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2016;44:906-913.
PURPOSE: To compare visual quality and quantitative measurements of multislice (MS) breath-hold and 3D respiratory-triggered T1 ρ sequences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1 ρ scans including MS BLOCK T1 ρ, MS HS8 T1 ρ, and 3D BLOCK T1 ρ were performed on 40 healthy volunteers and 17 liver cirrhosispatients on 3.0T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The MS breath-hold methods scanned three slices while the 3D method covered 26 slices. Visual scores of image quality, T1 ρ measurements of the three sequences, and T1 ρ values of healthy volunteers and cirrhosispatients were compared using parametric tests. RESULTS: Average visual scores for volunteers and patients of the three sequences were 3.19 and 2.82 for MS BLOCK T1 ρ; 3.71 and 3.59 for MS HS8 T1 ρ; 3.29 and 3.59 for 3D BLOCK T1 ρ, respectively. Difference of visual scores among the three groups was significant (P < 0.001). Differences in T1 ρ values among the three methods were significant (P < 0.001). Difference of T1 ρ between MS BLOCK T1 ρ and 3D BLOCK T1 ρ was not significant (volunteer: P = 0.82, patient: 0.92) while the difference of T1 ρ between MS BLOCK T1 ρ and MS HS8 T1 ρ, MS HS8 T1 ρ and 3D BLOCK T1 ρ was significant in both volunteers and patients (P < 0.01). Differences of T1 ρ between healthy volunteers and patients were all significant in three T1 ρ sequences (P = 0.04, 0.004, 0.03). CONCLUSION: Of the tested sequences, the image quality of MS HS8 T1 ρ was best, but 3D BLOCK T1 ρ with respiratory triggering should also be considered as an alternative sequence for clinical diagnosis of liver cirrhosis due to its superior coverage. J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2016;44:906-913.