| Literature DB >> 29899853 |
Luguang Chen1, Peipei Sun1, Qiang Hao1, Wei Yin1, Bing Xu1, Chao Ma1, Alto Stemmer2, Caixia Fu3, Minjie Wang1, Jianping Lu1.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate whether a prototype echo planar imaging sequence with integrated-shimming (iShim-EPI) can improve image quality in the thyroid gland in comparison to 3D-volume shimming echo planar imaging (3D-Shim-EPI), and to compare ADC values derived from iShim-EPI with those of 3D-Shim-EPI. Twenty-one patients with thyroid disease were enrolled and underwent axial DWIs with iShim-EPI and 3D-Shim-EPI using a 3 Tesla magnetic resonance scanner in this prospective study. Both sets of DWI images were evaluated by two independent observers who identified susceptibility and ghost artifacts and evaluated the images' capacity to detect thyroid nodules using quantitative scores. The ADC values of the thyroid nodules and the normal thyroid gland were measured two times within a 4-week period. The reproducibility was evaluated using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. There were significant differences in the image quality scores for susceptibility (2.81 ± 0.37 vs. 1.93 ± 0.29, p < 0.001), ghost artifacts (2.95 ± 0.15 vs. 1.93 ± 0.29, p < 0.001) and the detectability of thyroid nodules (3.00 ± 0.00 vs. 2.55 ± 0.75, p = 0.008) between the iShim-EPI and 3D-Shim-EPI techniques, except for the ADC values of the thyroid nodules (1.607 ± 0.466×10-3 mm2/s vs. 1.561 ± 0.483 × 10-3 mm2/s, p = 0.184) and contralateral normal thyroid gland (1.295 ± 0.340 × 10-3 mm2/s vs.1.279 ± 0.411 × 10-3 mm2/s, p = 0.777). Both techniques demonstrated excellent agreement between the ADC values using the ICC (range, 0.963 to 0.999) and Bland-Altman plots. The iShim-EPI technique demonstrated significantly higher image quality compared with the conventional 3D-Shim-EPI technique, with no significant differences in the ADC values.Entities:
Keywords: diffusion-weighted imaging; dynamic shimming; integrated-shimming echo planar imaging; single-shot echo planar imaging; thyroid nodule
Year: 2018 PMID: 29899853 PMCID: PMC5995232 DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.25279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oncotarget ISSN: 1949-2553
Comparison of qualitative scores for thyroid nodules for the iShim-EPI and 3D-Shim-EPI techniques
| Observers | Protocols | Susceptibility | Ghost artifacts | Detectability |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observer 1 | iShim-EPI | 2.86 ± 0.36 | 2.95 ± 0.22 | 3.00 ± 0.00 |
| 3D-Shim-EPI | 1.86 ± 0.36 | 1.90 ± 0.30 | 2.48 ± 0.75 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.009 | ||
| Observer 2 | iShim-EPI | 2.76 ± 0.44 | 2.95 ± 0.22 | 3.00 ± 0.00 |
| 3D-Shim-EPI | 2.00 ± 0.32 | 1.95 ± 0.38 | 2.62 ± 0.74 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.038 | ||
| Observers 1 & 2 | iShim-EPI | 2.81 ± 0.37 | 2.95 ± 0.15 | 3.00 ± 0.00 |
| 3D-Shim-EPI | 1.93 ± 0.29 | 1.93 ± 0.29 | 2.55 ± 0.72 | |
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.008 |
Note: Data are expressed for the two observers as Observer 1 and Observer 2. Values show the mean ± standard deviation for image quality.
Figure 1Comparison of the iShim-EPI and 3D-Shim-EPI sequences in a 26-year-old female with a thyroid nodule in the right thyroid lobe
(A) is a T2-weighted image with fat saturation and (D) is a T1-weighted image. Hyperintensity and hypointensity characteristics of the thyroid nodule were observed on these images (white arrows). The iShim-EPI DWI image had b = 500 s/mm2 (B) and ADC map (E). 3D-Shim-EPI DWI image with b = 500 s/mm2 (C) and ADC map (F). Susceptibility (red arrows) and ghost artifacts are shown on the 3D-Shim-EPI images, whereas improved image quality was observed using the iShim-EPI technique.
Figure 2Dot plots of susceptibility (A), ghost artifacts (B) and detectability of thyroid nodules (C) for the iShim-EPI and 3D-Shim-EPI techniques. **P < 0.005.
Quantitative comparison of ADC measurement between the iShim-EPI and 3D-Shim-EPI techniques in patients with thyroid nodules and contralateral normal thyroid gland
| Tissues | Protocols | Measurement 1 (mean ± SD) | Measurement 2 (mean ± SD) | ICC (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lesion | iShim-EPI | 1607.51 ± 466.30 | 1594.60 ± 472.82 | 0.157 | 0.997 (0.993–0.999) |
| 3D-Shim-EPI | 1561.37 ± 483.65 | 1555.49 ± 492.97 | 0.42 | 0.999 (0.997–0.999) | |
| Normal | iShim-EPI | 1295.22 ± 340.57 | 1285.59 ± 353.98 | 0.777 | 0.963 (0.905–0.986) |
| 3D-Shim-EPI | 1279.51 ± 411.45 | 1244.80 ± 409.11 | 0.085 | 0.984 (0.957–0.994) |
Note: Data are listed for the two measurements as Measurement 1 and Measurement 2. SD, standard deviation. ICC, Intra-class coefficient, CI, confidence interval.
Figure 3Bland-Altman plots of ADC measurements using the iShim-EPI (A) and 3D-Shim-EPI (B) techniques in patients with thyroid nodules.
Figure 4Bland-Altman plots of ADC measurements using the iShim-EPI (A) and 3D-Shim-EPI (B) techniques in patients with contralateral normal thyroid gland.
MRI protocols and main parameters of thyroid gland examination
| Protocols | TR/TE (ms) | FOV (mm2) | Matrix | Slice number | Thickness (mm) | Gap (mm) | b value (s/mm2) | Averages | Scan time |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axial T1W TSE | 550/12 | 240 × 240 | 224 × 320 | 20 | 4 | 0.4 | – | 3 | 2:07 |
| Cor T2W FS TSE | 3000/83 | 240 × 240 | 218 × 256 | 13 | 4 | 0.4 | – | 2 | 2:29 |
| Axial iShim-EPI | 2200/75 | 240 × 240 | 136 × 136 | 14 | 4 | 0.0 | 50, 500 | 4 | 1:17 |
| Axial 3D-Shim-EPI | 2400/56 | 240 × 240 | 136 × 136 | 14 | 4 | 0.0 | 50, 500 | 4 | 1:16 |
Note: TSE, turbo spin echo; TR/TE, repetition time / echo time; FOV, field of view; FS, fat saturation; iShim-EPI, integrated-shimming echo planar imaging; 3D-Shim-EPI, 3D-volume shimming echo planar imaging.