Amy R McDowell1, Susan C Shelmerdine2, David W Carmichael1,3, Owen J Arthurs2. 1. 1 UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health , London , UK. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK. 3. 3 Wellcome EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering, King's College London, St Thomas' Hospital , London , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: : To investigate the potential of advanced diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in post-mortem MRI (PMMR) at 3T. METHODS: : We acquired PMMR brain and body imaging in 12 neonates, mean gestational age 33.4 weeks (range 29-37 weeks) at 3T and 1.5T. Head and body diffusion imaging at 1.5T consisted of bipolar diffusion encoding and single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) for acquisition (echo time (TE) 96 ms; repetition time (TR) 2700 ms; voxel size 1.8 x 1.8 mm in-plane with slice thickness 5 mm; b-values of 500 and 1000 s/mm2 applied in three orthogonal directions; total acquisition time 2:12). A whole-body 3T diffusion imaging protocol using monopolar diffusion encoding and simultaneous multislice EPI acquisition with gradients applied in 12 uniformly distributed directions was obtained (TE 53.4 ms; TR 5600 ms; 1.8 mm isotropic; multiband factor 2; b-values of 250, 750, 1250 and 1750 s/mm2; acquisition time 2:09 for a single b-value). RESULTS: : There was significant improvement in image quality in multiband, multislice diffusion PMMR protocol. On visual assessment of image quality, 1.5T DWI scored poorly (mean 2.4 SD ± 0.47), and all 3T b-values individually scored significantly higher (p < 0.001) apart from b = 250 s/mm2 which was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: : Recent advances in diffusion sequences and hardware utilising higher field strengths and gradient performance allows whole-body diffusion PMMR imaging at high resolution with improved image quality compared to the current clinical approach. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: We have demonstrated feasibility of a multislice, multiband quantitative diffusion imaging sequence in the perinatal post-mortem setting. This will allow more detailed and quantitative clinical PMMR investigations using diffusion MRI in the future.
OBJECTIVE: : To investigate the potential of advanced diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) in post-mortem MRI (PMMR) at 3T. METHODS: : We acquired PMMR brain and body imaging in 12 neonates, mean gestational age 33.4 weeks (range 29-37 weeks) at 3T and 1.5T. Head and body diffusion imaging at 1.5T consisted of bipolar diffusion encoding and single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging (SE-EPI) for acquisition (echo time (TE) 96 ms; repetition time (TR) 2700 ms; voxel size 1.8 x 1.8 mm in-plane with slice thickness 5 mm; b-values of 500 and 1000 s/mm2 applied in three orthogonal directions; total acquisition time 2:12). A whole-body 3T diffusion imaging protocol using monopolar diffusion encoding and simultaneous multislice EPI acquisition with gradients applied in 12 uniformly distributed directions was obtained (TE 53.4 ms; TR 5600 ms; 1.8 mm isotropic; multiband factor 2; b-values of 250, 750, 1250 and 1750 s/mm2; acquisition time 2:09 for a single b-value). RESULTS: : There was significant improvement in image quality in multiband, multislice diffusion PMMR protocol. On visual assessment of image quality, 1.5T DWI scored poorly (mean 2.4 SD ± 0.47), and all 3T b-values individually scored significantly higher (p < 0.001) apart from b = 250 s/mm2 which was not significantly different. CONCLUSION: : Recent advances in diffusion sequences and hardware utilising higher field strengths and gradient performance allows whole-body diffusion PMMR imaging at high resolution with improved image quality compared to the current clinical approach. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:: We have demonstrated feasibility of a multislice, multiband quantitative diffusion imaging sequence in the perinatal post-mortem setting. This will allow more detailed and quantitative clinical PMMR investigations using diffusion MRI in the future.
Authors: Tony M Schmidt; Roland Fischer; Suzan Acar; Martin Lorenzen; Axel Heinemann; Ulrike Wedegärtner; Gerhard Adam; Jin Yamamura Journal: Forensic Sci Int Date: 2012-03-22 Impact factor: 2.395
Authors: K Setsompop; J Cohen-Adad; B A Gagoski; T Raij; A Yendiki; B Keil; V J Wedeen; L L Wald Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2012-06-23 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Kawin Setsompop; Borjan A Gagoski; Jonathan R Polimeni; Thomas Witzel; Van J Wedeen; Lawrence L Wald Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-08-19 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: R M Nicholl; V P Balasubramaniam; D S Urquhart; N Sellathurai; M A Rutherford Journal: Eur J Paediatr Neurol Date: 2007-01-31 Impact factor: 3.140
Authors: David A Feinberg; Steen Moeller; Stephen M Smith; Edward Auerbach; Sudhir Ramanna; Matthias Gunther; Matt F Glasser; Karla L Miller; Kamil Ugurbil; Essa Yacoub Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Abby Y Ding; Qi Li; Iris Y Zhou; Samantha J Ma; Gehua Tong; Grainne M McAlonan; Ed X Wu Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-01-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amy R McDowell; Susan C Shelmerdine; Sara Lorio; Wendy Norman; Rod Jones; David W Carmichael; Owen J Arthurs Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-04-24 Impact factor: 3.039