Edward M Lawrence1, Yuxin Zhang2, Jitka Starekova3, Zihan Wang4, Ali Pirasteh2, Shane A Wells3, Diego Hernando2. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. Electronic address: elawrence@uwhealth.org. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA; Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for reduced field-of-view (rFOV)- and multi-shot echo-planar imaging (msEPI)-based diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), using single-shot echo-planar-imaging (ssEPI) DWI as the reference. METHODS: Under IRB approval and after informed consent, msEPI, rFOV, and ssEPI DWI acquisitions were prospectively added to clinical prostate MRI exams at 3.0 T. Image distortion was quantitatively evaluated by root-mean-squared displacement (dr.m.s.). Histogram-based quantitative ADC parameters were compared in a sub-set of patients for proven sites of prostate cancer and matched non-cancerous prostate. Three radiologists also independently evaluated the DWI sequences for subjective image quality and distortion/artifact on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included (15 with proven sites of cancer). Average dr.m.s. demonstrated a small but statistically significant reduction in distortion for both rFOV and msEPI relative to ssEPI. Quantitative ADC parameters for prostate tumors demonstrated no significant difference across the 3 DWI acquisitions and each acquisition demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in mean ADC for tumor compared to normal prostate. Qualitative reader assessment demonstrated favorable image quality for rFOV and msEPI, more notable for msEPI. CONCLUSIONS: rFOV and msEPI DWI techniques achieved reduction in image distortion, improvement in image quality, and maintained reproducible ADC quantification compared to the standard ssEPI.
OBJECTIVES: To prospectively compare image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) quantification for reduced field-of-view (rFOV)- and multi-shot echo-planar imaging (msEPI)-based diffusion weighted imaging (DWI), using single-shot echo-planar-imaging (ssEPI) DWI as the reference. METHODS: Under IRB approval and after informed consent, msEPI, rFOV, and ssEPI DWI acquisitions were prospectively added to clinical prostate MRI exams at 3.0 T. Image distortion was quantitatively evaluated by root-mean-squared displacement (dr.m.s.). Histogram-based quantitative ADC parameters were compared in a sub-set of patients for proven sites of prostate cancer and matched non-cancerous prostate. Three radiologists also independently evaluated the DWI sequences for subjective image quality and distortion/artifact on a 5-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Twenty-five patients were included (15 with proven sites of cancer). Average dr.m.s. demonstrated a small but statistically significant reduction in distortion for both rFOV and msEPI relative to ssEPI. Quantitative ADC parameters for prostate tumors demonstrated no significant difference across the 3 DWI acquisitions and each acquisition demonstrated a statistically significant decrease in mean ADC for tumor compared to normal prostate. Qualitative reader assessment demonstrated favorable image quality for rFOV and msEPI, more notable for msEPI. CONCLUSIONS: rFOV and msEPI DWI techniques achieved reduction in image distortion, improvement in image quality, and maintained reproducible ADC quantification compared to the standard ssEPI.
Authors: Lisa Singer; Lisa J Wilmes; Emine U Saritas; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; Evelyn Proctor; Dorota J Wisner; Belinda Chang; Bonnie N Joe; Dwight G Nishimura; Nola M Hylton Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2011-12-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Brent A Warndahl; Eric A Borisch; Akira Kawashima; Stephen J Riederer; Adam T Froemming Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-12-05 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Tristan Barrett; Edward M Lawrence; Andrew N Priest; Anne Y Warren; Vincent J Gnanapragasam; Ferdia A Gallagher; Evis Sala Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2018-11-17 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Daniel R Henderson; Nandita M de Souza; Karen Thomas; Sophie F Riches; Veronica A Morgan; Syed A Sohaib; David P Dearnaley; Christopher C Parker; Nicholas J van As Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-10-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Sean D McGarry; Michael Brehler; John D Bukowy; Allison K Lowman; Samuel A Bobholz; Savannah R Duenweg; Anjishnu Banerjee; Sarah L Hurrell; Dariya Malyarenko; Thomas L Chenevert; Yue Cao; Yuan Li; Daekeun You; Andrey Fedorov; Laura C Bell; C Chad Quarles; Melissa A Prah; Kathleen M Schmainda; Bachir Taouli; Eve LoCastro; Yousef Mazaheri; Amita Shukla-Dave; Thomas E Yankeelov; David A Hormuth; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Keith Hulsey; Kurt Li; Wei Huang; Wei Huang; Mark Muzi; Michael A Jacobs; Meiyappan Solaiyappan; Stefanie Hectors; Tatjana Antic; Gladell P Paner; Watchareepohn Palangmonthip; Kenneth Jacobsohn; Mark Hohenwalter; Petar Duvnjak; Michael Griffin; William See; Marja T Nevalainen; Kenneth A Iczkowski; Peter S LaViolette Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2021-11-12 Impact factor: 5.119