Ryoji Mikayama1, Hidetake Yabuuchi2, Shinjiro Sonoda3, Koji Kobayashi3, Kazuya Nagatomo1, Mitsuhiro Kimura1, Satoshi Kawanami4, Takeshi Kamitani4, Seiji Kumazawa1, Hiroshi Honda4. 1. Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higasi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 2. Department of Health Sciences, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higasi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. h-yabu@med.kyushu-u.ac.jp. 3. Division of Radiology, Department of Medical Technology, Kyushu University Hospital, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higasi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan. 4. Department of Clinical Radiology, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kyushu University, 3-1-1 Maidashi, Higasi-ku, Fukuoka, 812-8582, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters between turbo spin-echo (TSE)-diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and echo-planar imaging (EPI)-DWI of the head and neck. METHODS: Fourteen volunteers underwent head and neck imaging using TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. Distortion ratio (DR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), ADC and IVIM-derived parameters were compared between the two techniques. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to analyse reproducibility between the quantitative parameters of TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. RESULTS: DR of TSE-DWI was significantly smaller than that of EPI-DWI. SNR and CNR of TSE-DWI were significantly higher than those of EPI-DWI. ADC and IVIM-derived parameters of TSE-DWI showed higher values than those of EPI-DWI, although the difference was not significant. Bland-Altman analysis showed wide limits of agreement between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: TSE-DWI can produce better image quality than EPI-DWI, while TSE-DWI possibly exhibits different values of quantitative parameters. Therefore, TSE-DWI could be a good alternative to EPI-DWI for patients sensitive to distortion. However, it is not recommended to use both TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI on follow-up. KEY POINTS: • Head and neck DWI is especially sensitive to magnetic inhomogeneity. • The distortion of images was less with TSE-DWI than with EPI-DWI. • TSE-DWI can possibly exhibit higher ADC and IVIM-derived parameters than EPI-DWI. • Bland-Altman analysis showed unacceptable LoA in quantitative analysis between TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. • It is not recommended to use both TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI for follow-up.
OBJECTIVES: To compare image quality, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM)-derived parameters between turbo spin-echo (TSE)-diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and echo-planar imaging (EPI)-DWI of the head and neck. METHODS: Fourteen volunteers underwent head and neck imaging using TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. Distortion ratio (DR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), ADC and IVIM-derived parameters were compared between the two techniques. Bland-Altman analysis was performed to analyse reproducibility between the quantitative parameters of TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. RESULTS: DR of TSE-DWI was significantly smaller than that of EPI-DWI. SNR and CNR of TSE-DWI were significantly higher than those of EPI-DWI. ADC and IVIM-derived parameters of TSE-DWI showed higher values than those of EPI-DWI, although the difference was not significant. Bland-Altman analysis showed wide limits of agreement between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: TSE-DWI can produce better image quality than EPI-DWI, while TSE-DWI possibly exhibits different values of quantitative parameters. Therefore, TSE-DWI could be a good alternative to EPI-DWI for patients sensitive to distortion. However, it is not recommended to use both TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI on follow-up. KEY POINTS: • Head and neck DWI is especially sensitive to magnetic inhomogeneity. • The distortion of images was less with TSE-DWI than with EPI-DWI. • TSE-DWI can possibly exhibit higher ADC and IVIM-derived parameters than EPI-DWI. • Bland-Altman analysis showed unacceptable LoA in quantitative analysis between TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI. • It is not recommended to use both TSE-DWI and EPI-DWI for follow-up.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artefacts; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Head and neck; Intravoxel incoherent motion; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: J Wang; S Takashima; F Takayama; S Kawakami; A Saito; T Matsushita; M Momose; T Ishiyama Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sungheon Kim; Laurie Loevner; Harry Quon; Eric Sherman; Gregory Weinstein; Alex Kilger; Harish Poptani Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: K Kikuchi; A Hiwatashi; O Togao; K Yamashita; R Kamei; D Momosaka; N Hata; K Iihara; S O Suzuki; T Iwaki; H Honda Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2019-04-25 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Qi-Yong Ai; Ann D King; Janet S M Chan; Weitian Chen; K C Allen Chan; John K S Woo; Benny C Y Zee; Anthony T C Chan; Darren M C Poon; Brigette B Y Ma; Edwin P Hui; Anil T Ahuja; Alexander C Vlantis; Jing Yuan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-03-22 Impact factor: 5.315