Ileana Hancu1, Seung-Kyun Lee2, Keith Hulsey3, Robert Lenkinski3, Dominic Holland4, Jonathan I Sperl5, Ek T Tan1. 1. GE Global Research Center, Niskayuna, NY, USA. 2. CNIR, IBS and Department of Biomedical Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University, Suwon, South Korea. 3. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. University of California at San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA. 5. GE Global Research Center, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of prospective, retrospective, and combined (prospective + retrospective) EPI distortion correction methods in bilateral breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) scans. METHODS: Five healthy female subjects underwent an axial bilateral breast DWI exam with and without prospective B0 inhomogeneity correction using slice-by-slice linear shimming. In each case, an additional b=0 DWI scan was performed with the polarity of the phase-encoding gradient reversed, to generate an estimated B0 map; this map or a separately acquired B0 map was used for retrospective correction, either alone or in combination with the prospective correction. The alignment between an undistorted, anatomical reference scan with similar contrast and the corrected b=0 DWI images with different correction schemes was assessed. RESULTS: The average cross-correlation coefficient between the DWI images and the anatomical reference scan was increased from 0.82 to 0.92 over the five volunteers when combined prospective and retrospective distortion correction was applied. Furthermore, such correction substantially reduced patient-to-patient variation of the image alignment and the variability of the average apparent diffusion coefficient in normal glandular tissue. CONCLUSION: Combined prospective and retrospective distortion correction can provide an efficient way to reduce susceptibility-induced image distortions and enhance the reliability of breast DWI exams. Magn Reson Med 78:247-253, 2017.
PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of prospective, retrospective, and combined (prospective + retrospective) EPI distortion correction methods in bilateral breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) scans. METHODS: Five healthy female subjects underwent an axial bilateral breast DWI exam with and without prospective B0 inhomogeneity correction using slice-by-slice linear shimming. In each case, an additional b=0 DWI scan was performed with the polarity of the phase-encoding gradient reversed, to generate an estimated B0 map; this map or a separately acquired B0 map was used for retrospective correction, either alone or in combination with the prospective correction. The alignment between an undistorted, anatomical reference scan with similar contrast and the corrected b=0 DWI images with different correction schemes was assessed. RESULTS: The average cross-correlation coefficient between the DWI images and the anatomical reference scan was increased from 0.82 to 0.92 over the five volunteers when combined prospective and retrospective distortion correction was applied. Furthermore, such correction substantially reduced patient-to-patient variation of the image alignment and the variability of the average apparent diffusion coefficient in normal glandular tissue. CONCLUSION: Combined prospective and retrospective distortion correction can provide an efficient way to reduce susceptibility-induced image distortions and enhance the reliability of breast DWI exams. Magn Reson Med 78:247-253, 2017.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Brenda F Kurland; Peter R Eby; Steven W White; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Bruce L Daniel; Kristin L Granlund; Catherine J Moran; Marcus T Alley; Jafi Lipson; Debra M Ikeda; Jennifer Kao; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Riham H Ei Khouli; Michael A Jacobs; Sarah D Mezban; Peng Huang; Ihab R Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kristin L Granlund; Ernesto Staroswiecki; Marcus T Alley; Bruce L Daniel; Brian A Hargreaves Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Yun Ju Kim; Sung Hun Kim; Bong Joo Kang; Chang Suk Park; Hyeon Sook Kim; Yo Han Son; David Andrew Porter; Byung Joo Song Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 3.500
Authors: Ek T Tan; Kenneth C Serrano; Pravjit Bhatti; Farhad Pishgar; Alyssa M Vanderbeek; Carlo J Milani; Darryl B Sneag Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: Ek T Tan; Lisa J Wilmes; Bonnie N Joe; Natsuko Onishi; Vignesh A Arasu; Nola M Hylton; Luca Marinelli; David C Newitt Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jennifer G Whisenant; Justin Romanoff; Habib Rahbar; Averi E Kitsch; Sara M Harvey; Linda Moy; Wendy B DeMartini; Basak E Dogan; Wei T Yang; Lilian C Wang; Bonnie N Joe; Lisa J Wilmes; Nola M Hylton; Karen Y Oh; Luminita A Tudorica; Colleen H Neal; Dariya I Malyarenko; Elizabeth S McDonald; Christopher E Comstock; Thomas E Yankeelov; Thomas L Chenevert; Savannah C Partridge Journal: J Breast Imaging Date: 2020-12-24
Authors: Michael J van Rijssel; Frank Zijlstra; Peter R Seevinck; Peter R Luijten; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Dennis W J Klomp; Josien P W Pluim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jing Luo; Daniel S Hippe; Habib Rahbar; Sana Parsian; Mara H Rendi; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-09-04 Impact factor: 6.466