Yuxin Zhang1, James Holmes2, Iñaki Rabanillo3, Arnaud Guidon4, Shane Wells2, Diego Hernando5. 1. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States. 2. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States. 3. Laboratorio MR de Procesado de Imagen, Universidad de Valladolid, Valladolid, Spain. 4. Applications and Workflow, GE Healthcare, Boston, MA, United States. 5. Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States; Department of Radiology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin Madison, Madison, WI, United States. Electronic address: dhernando@wisc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reproducibility of quantitative diffusion measurements obtained with reduced Field of View (rFOV) and Multi-shot EPI (msEPI) acquisitions, using single-shot EPI (ssEPI) as a reference. METHODS: Diffusion phantom experiments, and prostate diffusion-weighted imaging in healthy volunteers and patients with known or suspected prostate cancer were performed across the three different sequences. Quantitative diffusion measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient, and diffusion kurtosis parameters (healthy volunteers), were obtained and compared across diffusion sequences (rFOV, msEPI, and ssEPI). Other possible confounding factors like b-value combinations and acquisition parameters were also investigated. RESULTS: Both msEPI and rFOV have shown reproducible quantitative diffusion measurements relative to ssEPI; no significant difference in ADC was observed across pulse sequences in the standard diffusion phantom (p = 0.156), healthy volunteers (p ≥ 0.12) or patients (p ≥ 0.26). The ADC values within the non-cancerous central gland and peripheral zone of patients were 1.29 ± 0.17 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.74 ± 0.23 × 10-3 mm2/s respectively. However, differences in quantitative diffusion parameters were observed across different number of averages for rFOV, and across b-value groups and diffusion models for all the three sequences. CONCLUSION: Both rFOV and msEPI have the potential to provide high image quality with reproducible quantitative diffusion measurements in prostate diffusion MRI.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reproducibility of quantitative diffusion measurements obtained with reduced Field of View (rFOV) and Multi-shot EPI (msEPI) acquisitions, using single-shot EPI (ssEPI) as a reference. METHODS: Diffusion phantom experiments, and prostate diffusion-weighted imaging in healthy volunteers and patients with known or suspected prostate cancer were performed across the three different sequences. Quantitative diffusion measurements of apparent diffusion coefficient, and diffusion kurtosis parameters (healthy volunteers), were obtained and compared across diffusion sequences (rFOV, msEPI, and ssEPI). Other possible confounding factors like b-value combinations and acquisition parameters were also investigated. RESULTS: Both msEPI and rFOV have shown reproducible quantitative diffusion measurements relative to ssEPI; no significant difference in ADC was observed across pulse sequences in the standard diffusion phantom (p = 0.156), healthy volunteers (p ≥ 0.12) or patients (p ≥ 0.26). The ADC values within the non-cancerous central gland and peripheral zone of patients were 1.29 ± 0.17 × 10-3 mm2/s and 1.74 ± 0.23 × 10-3 mm2/s respectively. However, differences in quantitative diffusion parameters were observed across different number of averages for rFOV, and across b-value groups and diffusion models for all the three sequences. CONCLUSION: Both rFOV and msEPI have the potential to provide high image quality with reproducible quantitative diffusion measurements in prostate diffusion MRI.
Authors: Kolja M Thierfelder; Michael K Scherr; Mike Notohamiprodjo; Jakob Weiß; Olaf Dietrich; Ullrich G Mueller-Lisse; Josef Pfeuffer; Konstantin Nikolaou; Daniel Theisen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2014-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: G Zaharchuk; E U Saritas; J B Andre; C T Chin; J Rosenberg; T J Brosnan; A Shankaranarayan; D G Nishimura; N J Fischbein Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-03-31 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Isaac Daimiel Naranjo; Roberto Lo Gullo; Elizabeth A Morris; Toni Larowin; Maggie M Fung; Arnaud Guidon; Katja Pinker; Sunitha B Thakur Journal: Radiol Imaging Cancer Date: 2020-05-29