Temel Tirkes1, Xuandong Zhao2, Chen Lin3, Alex Jordan Stuckey2, Liang Li4, Shivriman Giri5, Dominik Nickel6. 1. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, 550 N. University Blvd. Suite 0663, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. atirkes@iu.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Indiana University School of Medicine, 550 N. University Blvd. Suite 0663, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, USA. 4. Department of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Siemens Medical Solutions, Inc, Chicago, IL, USA. 6. Siemens Healthcare GmbH, MR Applications Predevelopment, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Compare fourT1-mapping pulse sequences for T1 relaxometry and extracellular volume (ECV) fraction of the pancreas and liver MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vitro phase of this prospective study was performed on a T1 phantom, followed by imaging 22 patients. Variable flip angle (VFA), modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), prototype saturation recovery single-shot acquisition (SASHA), and prototype inversion recovery (IR-SNAPSHOT) pulse sequences were used to obtain T1 and ECV maps on the same 1.5 T MR scanner using the same imaging protocol. RESULTS: In vitro tests showed almost perfect precision of MOLLI (ρc = 0.9998), SASHA (ρc = 0.9985), and IR-SNAPSHOT (ρc = 0.9976), while VFA showed relatively less, however, substantial precision (ρc = 0.9862). Results of patient scans showed similar ECV fraction of the liver (p = 0.08), pancreas (p = 0.43), and T1 of the liver (p = 0.08) with all pulse sequences. T1 of the pancreas with MOLLI, SASHA, and IR-SNAPSHOT was statistically similar (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: MOLLI, SASHA, and IR-SNAPSHOT provided almost perfect in vitro precision and similar T1 during in vivo scans. Similar ECV fractions of the liver and pancreas were obtained with all sequences. More refinement of pulse sequences to provide sufficient spatial coverage in one breath hold together with high precision would be desirable in abdominal imaging.
PURPOSE: Compare fourT1-mapping pulse sequences for T1 relaxometry and extracellular volume (ECV) fraction of the pancreas and liver MATERIALS AND METHODS: In vitro phase of this prospective study was performed on a T1 phantom, followed by imaging 22 patients. Variable flip angle (VFA), modified Look-Locker inversion recovery (MOLLI), prototype saturation recovery single-shot acquisition (SASHA), and prototype inversion recovery (IR-SNAPSHOT) pulse sequences were used to obtain T1 and ECV maps on the same 1.5 T MR scanner using the same imaging protocol. RESULTS: In vitro tests showed almost perfect precision of MOLLI (ρc = 0.9998), SASHA (ρc = 0.9985), and IR-SNAPSHOT (ρc = 0.9976), while VFA showed relatively less, however, substantial precision (ρc = 0.9862). Results of patient scans showed similar ECV fraction of the liver (p = 0.08), pancreas (p = 0.43), and T1 of the liver (p = 0.08) with all pulse sequences. T1 of the pancreas with MOLLI, SASHA, and IR-SNAPSHOT was statistically similar (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: MOLLI, SASHA, and IR-SNAPSHOT provided almost perfect in vitro precision and similar T1 during in vivo scans. Similar ECV fractions of the liver and pancreas were obtained with all sequences. More refinement of pulse sequences to provide sufficient spatial coverage in one breath hold together with high precision would be desirable in abdominal imaging.
Entities:
Keywords:
Extracellular matrix; Liver; Magnetic resonance imaging; Pancreas; Quantitative imaging; T 1 mapping
Authors: Martin Ugander; Abiola J Oki; Li-Yueh Hsu; Peter Kellman; Andreas Greiser; Anthony H Aletras; Christopher T Sibley; Marcus Y Chen; W Patricia Bandettini; Andrew E Arai Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-01-24 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Neville Gai; Evrim B Turkbey; Saman Nazarian; Rob J van der Geest; Chia-Ying Liu; João A C Lima; David A Bluemke Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Yin Huang; Elizabeth A Sadowski; Nathan S Artz; Songwon Seo; Arjang Djamali; Thomas M Grist; Sean B Fain Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Daniel R Messroghli; Aleksandra Radjenovic; Sebastian Kozerke; David M Higgins; Mohan U Sivananthan; John P Ridgway Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: John Virostko; Richard C Craddock; Jonathan M Williams; Taylor M Triolo; Melissa A Hilmes; Hakmook Kang; Liping Du; Jordan J Wright; Mara Kinney; Jeffrey H Maki; Milica Medved; Michaela Waibel; Thomas W H Kay; Helen E Thomas; Siri Atma W Greeley; Andrea K Steck; Daniel J Moore; Alvin C Powers Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Yeon Jin Cho; Woo Sun Kim; Young Hun Choi; Seul Bi Lee; SeungHyun Lee; Jung-Eun Cheon; MunYoung Paek; SeungTae Woo Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 4.379