Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice: Part I. Technical considerations and clinical applications

Radiology

Volumn 246, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 675-696

  Kuhl, Christiane K ^a   Träber, Frank ^a   Schild, Hans H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABSORPTION; ARTIFACT; BREAST; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIFFUSION TENSOR IMAGING; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; ELECTRIC FIELD; HEART; HUMAN; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PATIENT SAFETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; RADIOLOGIST; RELAXATION TIME; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; WHOLE BODY MRI; BRAIN DISEASE; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

CONTRAST MEDIUM;

ARTIFACTS; BRAIN DISEASES; CONTRAST MEDIA; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 40949153401     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2463060881     Document Type: Review

References (104)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Radiological Devices Branch, Division of Reproductive, Abdominal, Ear, Nose and Throat, and Radiological Devices, Office of Device Evaluation. Guidance for industry: guidance for the submission of premarket notifications for magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/mri340.pdf. Updated November 14, 1998. Accessed January 3, 2008.
2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Radiological Devices Branch, Division of Reproductive, Abdominal, and Radiological Devices, Office of Device Evaluation. Guidance for industry and FDA staff: criteria for significant risk investigations of magnetic resonance diagnostic devices. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/793.html. Updated July 14, 2003. Accessed January 3, 2008.
3. Kuhl CK, Traeber F, Gieseke J, et al. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. II. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology (in press).
4. Hoult DI, Phil D. Sensitivity and power deposition in a high-field imaging experiment. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:46-67.
5. Wen H, Dension TJ, Singerman RW, et al. The intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio in human cardiac imaging at 1.5, 3 and 4 T. J Magn Reson 1997;125:65-71.
6. Larmor SJ. On the essence of physical relativity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1918;4:334-337.
7. Gold GE, Han E, Stainsby J, Wright G, Brittain J, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:343-351.
8. Duewell SH, Ceckler TL, Ong K, et al. Musculoskeletal MR imaging at 4 T and at 1.5 T: comparison of relaxation times and image contrast. Radiology 1995;196:551-555.
9. Peh WC, Chan JH. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001;30:179-191.
10. Fischer HW, Rinck PA, Van Haverbeke Y, Muller RN. Nuclear relaxation of human brain gray and white matter: analysis of field dependence and implications for MRI. Magn Reson Med 1990;16(2):317-334.
11. Lin C, Bernstein MA, Huston J, Fain SB. In-vivo and in-vitro measurements of T1 relaxation at 3.0T [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the Ninth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2001; 1685.
12. Traber F, Block W, Lamerichs R, Gieseke J, Schild HH. 1H metabolite relaxation times at 3.0 tesla: measurements of T1 and T2 values in normal brain and determination of regional differences in transverse relaxation. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;19:537-545.
13. de Bazelaire CM, Duhamel GD, Rofsky NM, Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 2004;230:652-659.
14. Stanisz GJ, Odrobina EE, Pun J, et al. T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:507-512.
15. Williams LA, Gelman N, Picot PA, et al. Neonatal brain: regional variability of in vivo MR imaging relaxation rates at 3.0 T - initial experience. Radiology 2005;235:595-603.
16. Lu H, Clingman C, Golay X, van Zijl PC. Determining the longitudinal relaxation time (T1) of blood at 3.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004;52:679-682.
17. Weigel M, Hennig J. Contrast behavior and relaxation effects of conventional and hyperecho-turbo spin echo sequences at 1.5 and 3 T. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:826-835.
18. Rakow-Penner R, Daniel B, Yu H, Sawyer-Glover A, Glover GH. Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measured using IDEAL. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:87-91.
19. Runge VM, Patel MC, Baumann SS, et al. T1-weighted imaging of the brain at 3 tesla using a 2-dimensional spoiled gradient echo technique. Invest Radiol 2006;41:68-75.
20. Rinck PA, Muller RN. Field strength and dose dependence of contrast enhancement by gadolinium-based MR contrast agents. Eur Radiol 1999;9:998-1004.
21. Rohrer M, Bauer H, Mintorovitch J, Requardt M, Weinmann HJ. Comparison of magnetic properties of MRI contrast media solutions at different magnetic field strengths. Invest Radiol 2005;40:715-724.
22. Ba-Ssalamah A, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Pinker K, et al. Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol 2003;38:415-422.
23. Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ, et al. Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T - initial experience. Radiology 2005;237:1014-1019.
24. Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N, Zivanovic O, Schild H, Gieseke J. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology 2006;239:666-676.
25. Kuhl CK, Kooijman H, Gieseke J, Schild HH. Effect of B1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2007;244:929-930.
26. Dahnke H, Schaeffter T. Limits of detection of SPIO at 3.0 T using T2 relaxometry. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:1202-1206.
27. Simon GH, Bauer J, Saborovski O, et al. T1 and T2 relaxivity of intracellular and extracellular USPIO at 1.5T and 3T clinical MR scanning. Eur Radiol 2006;16:738-745.
28. Chang JM, Lee JM, Lee MW, et al. Super-paramagnetic iron oxide-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T and 3.0 T imaging for detection of focal malignant liver lesions. Invest Radiol 2006;41:168-174.
29. von Falkenhausen M, Meyer C, Lutterbey G, et al. Intra-individual comparison of image contrast in SPIO-enhanced liver MRI at 1.5T and 3.0T. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1256-1261.
30. Hoenig K, Kuhl CK, Scheef L. Functional 3.0-T MR assessment of higher cognitive function: are there advantages over 1.5-T imaging? Radiology 2005;234(3):860-868.
31. Girnus R, Träber F, Gieseke J, et al. Individual prediction of a temperature rise of guidewires during MR-examinations using rf-field measurements: a comparison of 1.5 and 3 T [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004; 663.
32. Wang FN, Huang TY, Lin FH, et al. PROPELLER EPI: an MRI technique suitable for diffusion tensor imaging at high field strength with reduced geometric distortions. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:1232-1240.
33. Forbes KP, Pipe JG, Bird CR, Heiserman JE. PROPELLER MRI: clinical testing of a novel technique for quantification and compensation of head motion. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;14:215-222.
34. Sodickson DK, Manning WJ. Simultaneous acquisition of spatial harmonics (SMASH): fast imaging with radiofrequency coil arrays. Magn Reson Med 1997;38:591-603.
35. Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Scheidegger MB, Boesiger P. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 1999;42:952-962.
36. Griswold MA, Jakob PM, Heidemann RM, et al. Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA). Magn Reson Med 2002;47:1202-1210.
37. Bammer R, Keeling SL, Augustin M, et al. Improved diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar imaging (EPI) in stroke using sensitivity encoding (SENSE). Magn Reson Med 2001;46:548-554.
38. Kuhl CK, Gieseke J, von Falkenhausen M, et al. Sensitivity encoding for diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study. Radiology 2005;234:517-526.
39. Hennig J, Scheffler K. Hyperechoes. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:6-12.
40. Gieseke J, Kuhl CK, von Falkenhausen M, et al. Ultra fast T2-weighted TSE sequences with flip angle sweep and SENSE at 3T [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the 12th Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004; 74.
41. Mugler JP, Bao S, Mulkern RV, et al. Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spinecho MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 2000;216:891-899.
42. Runge VM, Case RS, Sonnier HL. Advances in clinical 3-tesla neuroimaging. Invest Radiol 2006;41:63-67.
43. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. MRI of the pelvis at 3 T: very high spatial resolution with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique in clinically acceptable scan time. Eur Radiol 2006;16:634-641.
44. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. Female pelvis: MR imaging at 3.0 T with sensitivity encoding and flip-angle sweep technique. Radiology 2006;241:538-545.
45. Vaughan JT, Adriany G, Snyder CJ, et al. Efficient high-frequency body coil for high-field MRI. Magn Reson Med 2004;52:851-859.
46. Graf H, Lauer UA, Schick F. Eddy-current induction in extended metallic parts as a source of considerable torsional moment. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:585-590.
47. Schenck JF. Safety of strong, static magnetic fields. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000;12:2-19.
48. Born M, Tschampa HJ, Willinek WA, Textor HJ, Kuhl CK, Schild HH. Prevalence of side effects of MRI at clinical 3 Tesla: intraindividual comparison to 1.5 T [abstr]. Radiology 2002;225(P):375.
49. Sommer T, Maintz D, Schmiedel A, et al. High field MR imaging: magnetic field interactions of aneurysm clips, coronary artery stents and iliac artery stents with a 3.0 Tesla MR system [in German]. Rofo 2004;176:731-738.
50. Majoie CB, Sprengers ME, van Rooij WJ, et al. MR angiography at 3T versus digital subtraction angiography in the follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:1349-1356.
51. Ugurbil K, Adriany G, Andersen P, et al. Ultrahigh field magnetic resonance imaging and spectroscopy. Magn Reson Imaging 2003;21:1263-1281.
52. Keiper MD, Grossman RI, Hirsch JA, et al. MR identification of white matter abnormalities in multiple sclerosis: a comparison between 1.5 T and 4 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1998;19:1489-1493.
53. Sicotte NL, Voskuhl RR, Bouvier S, Klutch R, Cohen MS, Mazziotta JC. Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2003;38:423-427.
54. Bachmann R, Reilmann R, Schwindt W, Kugel H, Heindel W, Kramer S. FLAIR imaging for multiple sclerosis: a comparative MR study at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2006;16:915-921.
55. Nielsen K, Rostrup E, Frederiksen JL, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla detects more lesions in acute optic neuritis than at 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:76-82.
56. Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Kuhl CK, et al. Does high-field MR imaging have an influence on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes according to current diagnostic MR imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27(8):1794-1798.
57. Wattjes MP, Lutterbey G, Gieseke J, et al. Double inversion recovery brain imaging at 3T: diagnostic value in the detection of multiple sclerosis lesions. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28(1):54-59.
58. Wattjes MP, Lutterbey G, Harzheim M, et al. Imaging of inflammatory lesions at 3.0 Tesla in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis: a comparison of fluid-attenuated inversion recovery with T2 turbo spin-echo. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2067-2073.
59. Barkhof F, Rocca M, Francis G, et al. Validation of diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis and response to interferon beta 1a. Ann Neurol 2003;53:718-724.
60. Minneboo A, Barkhof F, Polman CH, Uitdehaag BM, Knol DL, Castelijns JA. Infratentorial lesions predict long-term disability in patients with initial findings suggestive of multiple sclerosis. Arch Neurol 2004;61:217-221.
61. Knake S, Triantafyllou C, Wald LL, et al. 3T phased array MRI improves the presurgical evaluation in focal epilepsies: a prospective study. Neurology 2005;65:1026-1031.
62. Von Oertzen J, Urbach H, Jungbluth S, et al. Standard magnetic resonance imaging is inadequate for patients with refractory focal epilepsy. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2002;73:643-647.
63. Lutterbey G, Wattjes MP, Kandyba J, et al. Clinical evaluation of a speed optimized T2 weighted fast spin echo sequence at 3.0 T using variable flip angle refocusing, half-Fourier acquisition and parallel imaging. Br J Radiol 2007;80:668-673.
64. Kuhl CK, Textor J, Gieseke J, et al. Acute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative study. Radiology 2005;234:509-516.
65. Melhem ER, Mori S, Mukundan G, Kraut MA, Pomper MG, van Zijl P. Diffusion tensor MR imaging of the brain and white matter tractography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:3-16.
66. Okada T, Miki Y, Fushimi Y, et al. Diffusion-tensor fiber tractography: intraindividual comparison of 3.0-T and 1.5-T MR imaging. Radiology 2006;238:668-678.
67. Nelles M, Gieseke J, Lachenmayer L, Schild HH, Urbach H. Diffusion tensor pyramidal tractography in patients with anterior choroidal artery infarcts. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol (in press).
68. Allkemper T, Schwindt W, Maintz D, Heindel W, Tombach B. Sensitivity of T2-weighted FSE sequences towards physiological iron depositions in normal brains at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1000-1004.
69. Allkemper T, Tombach B, Schwindt W, et al. Acute and subacute intracerebral hemorrhages: comparison of MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T - initial experience. Radiology 2004;232:874-881.
70. Sohn CH, Baik SK, Lee HJ, et al. MR imaging of hyperacute subarachnoid and intraventricular hemorrhage at 3T: a preliminary report of gradient echo T2*-weighted sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2005;26:662-665.
71. Patel MR, Siewert B, Warach S, Edelman RR. Diffusion and perfusion imaging techniques. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1995;3:425-438.
72. Manka C, Traber F, Gieseke J, Schild HH, Kuhl CK. Three-dimensional dynamic susceptibility-weighted perfusion MR imaging at 3.0 T: feasibility and contrast agent dose. Radiology 2005;234:869-877.
73. Thilmann O, Larsson EM, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM, Stahlberg F, Wirestam R. Effects of echo time variation on perfusion assessment using dynamic susceptibility contrast MR imaging at 3 tesla. Magn Reson Imaging 2004;22:929-935.
74. Detre JA, Wang J. Technical aspects and utility of fMRI using BOLD and ASL. Clin Neurophysiol 2002;113:621-634.
75. Wang J, Alsop DC, Li L, et al. Comparison of quantitative perfusion imaging using arterial spin labeling at 1.5 and 4.0 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2002;48:242-254.
76. Wang J, Aguirre GK, Kimberg DY, Detre JA. Empirical analyses of null-hypothesis perfusion FMRI data at 1.5 and 4 T. Neuroimage 2003;19:1449-1462.
77. Bernstein MA, Huston J 3rd, Lin C, Gibbs GF, Felmlee JP. High-resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0T: technical considerations and initial experience. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:955-962.
78. Campeau NG, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, Lin C, Gibbs GF. Magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial clinical experience. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2001;12:183-120.
79. Gibbs GF, Huston J 3rd, Bernstein MA, Riederer SJ, Brown RD Jr. Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2004;25:84-87.
80. Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B, et al. Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging - initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913-920.
81. Willinek WA, Gieseke J, von Falkenhausen M, et al. Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) for high spatial resolution time-of-flight MR angiography of the intracranial arteries at 3.0 T. Rofo 2004;176:21-26.
82. Fushimi Y, Miki Y, Kikuta K, et al. Comparison of 3.0- and 1.5-T three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography in moya-moya disease: preliminary experience. Radiology 2006;239:232-237.
83. Choi CG, Lee DH, Lee JH, et al. Detection of intracranial atherosclerotic steno-occlusive disease with 3D time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography with sensitivity encoding at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2007;28:439-446.
84. Huston J, Fain SB, Wald JT, et al. Carotid artery: elliptic centric contrast-enhanced MR angiography compared with conventional angiography. Radiology 2001;218:138-143.
85. Huston J, Fain SB, Riederer SJ, Wilman AH, Bernstein MA, Busse RF. Carotid arteries: maximizing arterial to venous contrast in fluoroscopically triggered contrast-enhanced MR angiography with elliptic centric view ordering. Radiology 1999;211:265-273.
86. Wilman AH, Riederer SJ, Huston J, Wald JT, Debbins JP. Arterial phase carotid and vertebral artery imaging in 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography by combining fluoroscopic triggering with an elliptical centric acquisition order. Magn Reson Med 1998;40:24-35.
87. Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Conrad R, et al. Randomly segmented central k-space ordering in high-spatial-resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic arteries: initial experience. Radiology 2002;225(2):583-588.
88. Korosec FR, Frayne R, Grist TM, et al. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:345-351.
89. Summers PE, Kollias SS, Valavanis A. Resolution improvement in thick-slab magnetic resonance digital subtraction angiography using SENSE at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:662-673.
90. Hadizadeh D, von Falkenhausen M, Gieseke J, et al. Cerebral arteriovenous malformation: Spetzler-Martin classification at subsecond-temporal-Rrsolution four-dimensional MR angiography compared with that at DSA. Radiology 2008; 246:205-213.
91. Nael K, Ruehm SG, Michaely HJ, et al. High spatial-resolution CE-MRA of the carotid circulation with parallel imaging: comparison of image quality between 2 different acceleration factors at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:391-399.
92. Willinek WA, von Falkenhausen M, Born M, et al. Noninvasive detection of steno-occlusive disease of the supra-aortic arteries with three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography: a prospective, intra-individual comparative analysis with digital subtraction angiography. Stroke 2005;36:38-43.
93. Kramer U, Nael K, Laub G, et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance angiography of the renal arteries using parallel imaging acquisition techniques at 3.0 T: initial experience. Invest Radiol 2006;41:125-132.
94. Nael K, Villablanca JP, Pope WB, McNamara TO, Laub G, Finn JP. Supraaortic arteries: contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3.0 T - highly accelerated parallel acquisition for improved spatial resolution over an extended field of view. Radiology 2007;242:600-609.
95. Michaely HJ, Nael K, Schoenberg SO, et al. The feasibility of spatial high-resolution magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) of the renal arteries at 3.0 T. Rofo 2005;177:800-804.
96. Michaely HJ, Kramer H, Dietrich O, et al. Intraindividual comparison of high-spatial-resolution abdominal MR angiography at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: initial experience. Radiology 2007;244:907-913.
97. Born M, Willinek WA, Gieseke J, von Falkenhausen M, Schild H, Kuhl CK. Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) for contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography of the abdominal arteries. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22:559-565.
98. Diehm N, Kickuth R, Baumgartner I, et al. Magnetic resonance angiography in infra-popliteal arterial disease: prospective comparison of 1.5 and 3 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2007;42:467-476.
99. Runge VM, Schonberg SO. Advances in 3 Tesla MRI: redefining imaging for clinical routine. Invest Radiol 2007;42(7):485.
100. Frydrychowicz A, Bley TA, Winterer JT, et al. Accelerated time-resolved 3D contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3T: clinical experience in 31 patients. MAGMA 2006:19:187-195.
101. Markl M, Uhl M, Wieben O, et al. High resolution 3T MRI for the assessment of cervical and superficial cranial arteries in giant cell arteritis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:423-427.
102. Fenchel M, Nael K, Ruehm S, et al. Isotropic high spatial resolution magnetic resonance angiography of the supra-aortic arteries using two-dimensional parallel imaging (iPAT2) at 3 Tesla: a feasibility study. Invest Radiol 2006;41:545-552.
103. Cashen TA, Carr JC, Shin W, et al. Intracranial time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography at 3T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2006;27:822-829.
104. Fenchel M, Nael K, Deshpande VS, et al. Renal magnetic resonance angiography at 3.0 Tesla using a 32-element phased-array coil system and parallel imaging in 2 directions. Invest Radiol 2006;41:697-703.