BACKGROUND: Gradient nonlinearity (GNL) leads to biased apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) in diffusion-weighted imaging. A gradient nonlinearity correction (GNLC) method has been developed for whole body systems, but is yet to be tested for the new compact 3T (C3T) scanner, which exhibits more complex GNL due to its asymmetrical design. PURPOSE: To assess the improvement of ADC quantification with GNLC for the C3T scanner. STUDY TYPE: Phantom measurements and retrospective analysis of patient data. PHANTOM/ SUBJECTS: A diffusion quality control phantom with vials containing 0-30% polyvinylpyrrolidone in water was used. For in vivo data, 12 patient exams were analyzed (median age, 33). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Imaging was performed on the C3T and two commercial 3T scanners. A clinical DWI (repetition time [TR] = 10,000 msec, echo time [TE] = minimum, b = 1000 s/mm2 ) sequence was used for phantom imaging and 10 patient cases and a clinical DTI (TR = 6000-10,000 msec, TE = minimum, b = 1000 s/mm2 ) sequence was used for two patient cases. ASSESSMENT: The 0% vial was measured along three orthogonal axes, and at two different temperatures. The ADC for each concentration was compared between the C3T and two whole-body scanners. Cerebrospinal fluid and white matter ADCs were quantified for each patient and compared to values in literature. STATISTICAL TESTS: Paired t-test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: For all PVP concentrations, the corrected ADC was within 2.5% of the reference ADC. On average, the ADC of cerebrospinal fluid and white matter post-GNLC were within 1% and 6%, respectively, of values reported in the literature and were significantly different from the uncorrected data (P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that GNL effects were more severe for the C3T due to the asymmetric gradient design, but our implementation of a GNLC compensated for these effects, resulting in ADC values that are in good agreement with values from the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1498-1507.
BACKGROUND: Gradient nonlinearity (GNL) leads to biased apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) in diffusion-weighted imaging. A gradient nonlinearity correction (GNLC) method has been developed for whole body systems, but is yet to be tested for the new compact 3T (C3T) scanner, which exhibits more complex GNL due to its asymmetrical design. PURPOSE: To assess the improvement of ADC quantification with GNLC for the C3T scanner. STUDY TYPE: Phantom measurements and retrospective analysis of patient data. PHANTOM/ SUBJECTS: A diffusion quality control phantom with vials containing 0-30% polyvinylpyrrolidone in water was used. For in vivo data, 12 patient exams were analyzed (median age, 33). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Imaging was performed on the C3T and two commercial 3T scanners. A clinical DWI (repetition time [TR] = 10,000 msec, echo time [TE] = minimum, b = 1000 s/mm2 ) sequence was used for phantom imaging and 10 patient cases and a clinical DTI (TR = 6000-10,000 msec, TE = minimum, b = 1000 s/mm2 ) sequence was used for two patient cases. ASSESSMENT: The 0% vial was measured along three orthogonal axes, and at two different temperatures. The ADC for each concentration was compared between the C3T and two whole-body scanners. Cerebrospinal fluid and white matter ADCs were quantified for each patient and compared to values in literature. STATISTICAL TESTS: Paired t-test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). RESULTS: For all PVP concentrations, the corrected ADC was within 2.5% of the reference ADC. On average, the ADC of cerebrospinal fluid and white matter post-GNLC were within 1% and 6%, respectively, of values reported in the literature and were significantly different from the uncorrected data (P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that GNL effects were more severe for the C3T due to the asymmetric gradient design, but our implementation of a GNLC compensated for these effects, resulting in ADC values that are in good agreement with values from the literature. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;48:1498-1507.
Authors: Neil P Jerome; Marianthi-Vasiliki Papoutsaki; Matthew R Orton; Harold G Parkes; Jessica M Winfield; Michael A Boss; Martin O Leach; Nandita M deSouza; David J Collins Journal: Med Phys Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Ek T Tan; Luca Marinelli; Zachary W Slavens; Kevin F King; Christopher J Hardy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-11-21 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: David C Newitt; Ek T Tan; Lisa J Wilmes; Thomas L Chenevert; John Kornak; Luca Marinelli; Nola Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-03-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Kathryn E Keenan; Maureen Ainslie; Alex J Barker; Michael A Boss; Kim M Cecil; Cecil Charles; Thomas L Chenevert; Larry Clarke; Jeffrey L Evelhoch; Paul Finn; Daniel Gembris; Jeffrey L Gunter; Derek L G Hill; Clifford R Jack; Edward F Jackson; Guoying Liu; Stephen E Russek; Samir D Sharma; Michael Steckner; Karl F Stupic; Joshua D Trzasko; Chun Yuan; Jie Zheng Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Thomas L Chenevert; Craig J Galbán; Marko K Ivancevic; Susan E Rohrer; Frank J Londy; Thomas C Kwee; Charles R Meyer; Timothy D Johnson; Alnawaz Rehemtulla; Brian D Ross Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Seung-Kyun Lee; Jean-Baptiste Mathieu; Dominic Graziani; Joseph Piel; Eric Budesheim; Eric Fiveland; Christopher J Hardy; Ek Tsoon Tan; Bruce Amm; Thomas K-F Foo; Matt A Bernstein; John Huston; Yunhong Shu; John F Schenck Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-12-02 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: S Tao; J D Trzasko; J L Gunter; P T Weavers; Y Shu; J Huston; S K Lee; E T Tan; M A Bernstein Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: P S Tofts; D Lloyd; C A Clark; G J Barker; G J Parker; P McConville; C Baldock; J M Pope Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Myung-Ho In; Ek Tsoon Tan; Joshua D Trzasko; Yunhong Shu; Daehun Kang; Uten Yarach; Shengzhen Tao; Erin M Gray; John Huston; Matt A Bernstein Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-05-20 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Ek T Tan; Robert Y Shih; Jhimli Mitra; Tim Sprenger; Yihe Hua; Chitresh Bhushan; Matt A Bernstein; Jennifer A McNab; J Kevin DeMarco; Vincent B Ho; Thomas K F Foo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ek T Tan; Yihe Hua; Eric W Fiveland; Mark E Vermilyea; Joseph E Piel; Keith J Park; Vincent B Ho; Thomas K F Foo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-08-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Colin B Hansen; Baxter P Rogers; Kurt G Schilling; Vishwesh Nath; Justin A Blaber; Okan Irfanoglu; Alan Barnett; Carlo Pierpaoli; Adam W Anderson; Bennett A Landman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.546