OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare respiratory-triggered DIfferential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (rtDISCO) and breath-held Liver Acquisition with Volume Acquisition (LAVA) image quality. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study, 25 subjects underwent T1 imaging with rtDISCO and LAVA before and after intravenous contrast. Three readers scored individual series and side-by-side comparisons for motion and noise. Eight clinical tasks were qualitatively assessed. RESULTS: As individual series, readers rated rtDISCO images as more degraded by motion on both precontrast (mean rtDISCO score, 2.7; LAVA, 1.6; P < 0.001) and postcontrast images (rtDISCO, 2.4; LAVA, 1.8; P < 0.001). Readers preferred LAVA images based on motion on both precontrast (mean preference, -1.2; P < 0.001) and postcontrast images (mean preference, -0.7; P < 0.001) on side-by-side assessment. There was no preference between sequences for 6 of 8 clinical tasks on postcontrast images. CONCLUSIONS: Readers preferred LAVA with respect to motion but not noise; there was no preference in most of the tested clinical tasks.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare respiratory-triggered DIfferential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (rtDISCO) and breath-held Liver Acquisition with Volume Acquisition (LAVA) image quality. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study, 25 subjects underwent T1 imaging with rtDISCO and LAVA before and after intravenous contrast. Three readers scored individual series and side-by-side comparisons for motion and noise. Eight clinical tasks were qualitatively assessed. RESULTS: As individual series, readers rated rtDISCO images as more degraded by motion on both precontrast (mean rtDISCO score, 2.7; LAVA, 1.6; P < 0.001) and postcontrast images (rtDISCO, 2.4; LAVA, 1.8; P < 0.001). Readers preferred LAVA images based on motion on both precontrast (mean preference, -1.2; P < 0.001) and postcontrast images (mean preference, -0.7; P < 0.001) on side-by-side assessment. There was no preference between sequences for 6 of 8 clinical tasks on postcontrast images. CONCLUSIONS: Readers preferred LAVA with respect to motion but not noise; there was no preference in most of the tested clinical tasks.
Authors: Phillip M Young; Anja C Brau; Yuji Iwadate; Shreyas Vasanawala; Bruce L Daniel; Anobel Tamrazi; Robert J Herfkens Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: John N Morelli; Val M Runge; Fei Ai; Ulrike Attenberger; Lan Vu; Stuart H Schmeets; Wolfgang R Nitz; John E Kirsch Journal: Radiographics Date: 2011 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Tobias K Block; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ruth P Lim; Danny Kim; David J Mossa; James S Babb; Berthold Kiefer; Vivian S Lee Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Manojkumar Saranathan; Dan W Rettmann; Brian A Hargreaves; Sharon E Clarke; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Kai T Block; Matthew J Winfeld; Shailee V Lala; Daniel Mazori; Emalyn Giuffrida; James S Babb; Sarah S Milla Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 5.315