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

Radiology

Volumn 247, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 16-35

  Kuhl, Christiane K ^a   Träber, Frank ^a   Gieseke, Jürgen ^a   Drahanowsky, Wolfgang ^b   Morakkabati Spitz, Nuschin ^a   Willinek, Winfried ^a   Von Falkenhausen, Marcus ^a   Manka, Christoph ^a   Schild, Hans H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b Diagnosezentrum Urania   (Austria)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BREAST CANCER; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ELECTROCARDIOGRAM; HEART PERFUSION; HUMAN; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; NEUROECTODERM TUMOR; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSTATE CANCER; PROSTATE HYPERTROPHY; PROTON NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; ARTICLE; BREAST DISEASE; CORONARY ARTERY BLOOD FLOW; HEART DISEASE; METHODOLOGY; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASE; PATHOLOGY; PELVIS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

BREAST DISEASES; CORONARY CIRCULATION; HEART DISEASES; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; MUSCULOSKELETAL DISEASES; PELVIS; WHOLE BODY IMAGING;

EID: 42449110749     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2471061828     Document Type: Review

References (114)

1. Kuhl CK, Träber F, Schild HH. Whole-body high-field-strength (3.0-T) MR imaging in clinical practice. I. Technical considerations and clinical applications. Radiology 2008;246(3):675-696.
2. Hinton DP, Wald LL, Pitts J, Schmitt F. Comparison of cardiac MRI on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla clinical whole body systems. Invest Radiol 2003;38:436-442.
3. Michaely HJ, Nael K, Schoenberg SO, et al. Analysis of cardiac function: comparison between 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging - preliminary experience. Invest Radiol 2006;41:133-140.
4. Klumpp B, Fenchel M, Hoevelborn T, et al. Assessment of myocardial viability using delayed enhancement magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:661-667.
5. Schar M, Kozerke S, Fischer SE, Boesiger P. Cardiac SSFP imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2004;51:799-806.
6. Wintersperger BJ, Bauner K, Reeder SB, et al. Cardiac steady-state free precession CINE magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 tesla: impact of parallel imaging acceleration on volumetric accuracy and signal parameters. Invest Radiol 2006;41:141-147.
7. Gutberlet M, Schwinge K, Freyhardt P, et al. Influence of high magnetic field strengths and parallel acquisition strategies on image quality in cardiac 2D CINE magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of 1.5 T vs. 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1586-1597.
8. Stuber M, Botnar RM, Fischer SE, et al. Preliminary report on in vivo coronary MRA at 3 Tesla in humans. Magn Reson Med 2002;48:425-429.
9. Bi X, Deshpande V, Simonetti O, Laub G, Li D. Three-dimensional breathhold SSFP coronary MRA: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;22(2):206-212.
10. Sommer T, Hackenbroch M, Hofer U, et al. Coronary MR angiography at 3.0 T versus that at 1.5 T: initial results in patients suspected of having coronary artery disease. Radiology 2005;234:718-725.
11. Nezafat R, Stuber M, Ouwerkerk R, Gharib AM, Desai MY, Pettigrew RI. B1-insensitive T2 preparation for improved coronary magnetic resonance angiography at 3 T. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:858-864.
12. Gharib AM, Herzka DA, Ustun AO, et al. Coronary MR angiography at 3T during diastole and systole. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:921-926.
13. Cheng AS, Robson MD, Neubauer S, Selvanayagam JB. Irreversible myocardial injury: assessment with cardiovascular delayed-enhancement MR imaging and comparison of 1.5 and 3.0 T - initial experience. Radiology 2007;242:735-742.
14. Araoz PA, Glockner JF, McGee KP, et al. 3 Tesla MR imaging provides improved contrast in first-pass myocardial perfusion imaging over a range of gadolinium doses. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2005;7(3):559-564.
15. Strach K, Meyer C, Thomas D, et al. High-resolution myocardial perfusion imaging at 3 T: comparison to 1.5 T in healthy volunteers. Eur Radiol 2007;17:1829-1835.
16. Meyer C, Strach K, Thomas D, et al. High-resolution myocardial stress perfusion at 3 T in patients with suspected coronary artery disease. Eur Radiol. Published online September 13, 2007.
17. Cheng AS, Pegg TJ, Karamitsos TD, et al. Cardiovascular magnetic resonance perfusion imaging at 3-tesla for the detection of coronary artery disease: a comparison with 1.5-tesla. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;49:2440-2449.
18. Valeti VU, Chun W, Potter DD, et al. Myocardial tagging and strain analysis at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1.5 Tesla imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:477-480.
19. Kramer U, Deshpande V, Fenchel M, et al. Cardiac MR tagging: optimization of sequence parameters and comparison at 1.5 T and 3.0 T in a volunteer study [in German]. Rofo 2006;178(5):515-524.
20. Cury RC, Houser SL, Furie KL, et al. Vulnerable plaque detection by 3.0 tesla MRI. Invest Radiol 2006;41:112-115.
21. Greenman RL, Shirosky JE, Mulkern RV, Rofsky NM. Double inversion black-blood fast spin-echo imaging of the human heart: a comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;17:648-655.
22. Hinton DP, Cury RC, Chan RC, et al. Bright and black blood imaging of the carotid bifurcation at 3.0T. Eur J Radiol 2006;57:403-411.
23. Botnar RM, Stuber M, Lamerichs R, et al. Initial experiences with in vivo right coronary artery human MR vessel wall imaging at 3 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2003;5:589-594.
24. Hazirolan T, Gupta SN, Mohamed MA, Bluemke DA. Reproducibility of black-blood coronary vessel wall MR imaging. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2005;7(2):409-413.
25. Koktzoglou I, Simonetti O, Li D. Coronary artery wall imaging: initial experience at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:128-132.
26. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology 2007;244:356-378.
27. Kuhl CK. Current status of breast MR imaging. 2. Clinical applications. Radiology 2007;244:672-691.
28. 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.
29. 1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T [letter]. Radiology 2007;244:929-230.
30. Kuhl CK. Breast MRI at 3.0 T. Radiol Clin North Am 2007;15:315-320.
31. Jacobs MA, Barker PB, Argani P, Ouwerkerk R, Bhujwalla ZM, Bluemke DA. Combined dynamic contrast enhanced breast MR and proton spectroscopic imaging: a feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:23-28.
32. 1H MR spectroscopy - a pilot study at 4 T. Radiology 2004;233:424-431.
33. 1H MR spectroscopy to improve diagnostic accuracy of breast MR imaging: preliminary results of observer performance study at 4.0 T. Radiology 2005;236:465-475.
34. Bartella L, Morris EA, Dershaw DD, et al. Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiology 2006;239:686-692.
35. 1H) MR spectroscopy. Radiology 2007;245:80-87.
36. Kumar M, Jagannathan NR, Seenu V, Dwivedi SN, Julka PK, Rath GK. Monitoring the therapeutic response of locally advanced breast cancer patients: sequential in vivo proton MR spectroscopy study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:325-332.
37. Cecil KM, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, Lenkinski RE. The evaluation of human breast lesions with magnetic resonance imaging and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2001;68:45-54.
38. Kuhl CK, Bieling H, Gieseke J, et al. Breast neoplasms: T2* susceptibility-contrast, firstpass perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 1997;202:87-95.
39. Kvistad KA, Rydland J, Vainio J, et al. Breast lesions: evaluation with dynamic contrast-enhanced T1-weighted MR imaging and with T2*-weighted first-pass perfusion MR imaging. Radiology 2000;216:545-553.
40. Roth Y, Tichler T, Kostenich G, et al. High-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for pretreatment prediction and early monitoring of tumor response to therapy in mice. Radiology 2004;232:685-692.
41. Merkle EM, Haugan PA, Thomas J, Jaffe TA, Gullotto C. 3.0- versus 1.5-T MR cholangiography: a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:516-521.
42. O'Regan DP, Fitzgerald J, Allsop J, et al. A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Br J Radiol 2005;78:894-898.
43. von Falkenhausen MM, Lutterbey G, Morakkabati-Spitz N, et al. High-field-strength MR imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 2006;241:156-166.
44. Chang JM, Lee JM, Lee MW. Superparamagnetic 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.
45. 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.
46. Edelman RR, Salanitri G, Brand R, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla: qualitative and quantitative comparison with 1.5 tesla. Invest Radiol 2006;41:175-180.
47. Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Tervahartiala P, Vehmas T, Taari K, Rannikko S. Prostatic MR imaging: accuracy in differentiating cancer from other prostatic disorders. Acta Radiol 2001;42:348-354.
48. Ikonen S, Karkkainen P, Kivisaari L, et al. Endorectal magnetic resonance imaging of prostatic cancer: comparison between fat-suppressed T2-weighted fast spin echo and three-dimensional dual-echo, steady-state sequences. Eur Radiol 2001;11:236-241.
49. Presti JC Jr, Hricak H, Narayan PA, Shinohara K, White S, Carroll PR. Local staging of prostatic carcinoma: comparison of transrectal sonography and endorectal MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:103-108.
50. Rouviere O, Hartman RP, Lyonnet D. Prostate MR imaging at high-field strength: evolution or revolution? Eur Radiol 2006;16:276-284.
51. Cornud F, Flam T, Chauveinc L, et al. Extraprostatic spread of clinically localized prostate cancer: factors predictive of pT3 tumor and of positive endorectal MR imaging examination results. Radiology 2002;224:203-210.
52. Hricak H. MR imaging and MR spectroscopic imaging in the pre-treatment evaluation of prostate cancer. Br J Radiol 2005;78(spec no 2):S103-S111.
53. Claus FG, Hricak H, Hattery RR. Pretreatment evaluation of prostate cancer: role of MR imaging and 1H MR spectroscopy. RadioGraphics 2004;24:S167-S180.
54. Van der Graaf M, Van den Boogert HJ, Jager GJ, Barentsz JO, Heerschap A. Human prostate: multisection proton MR spectroscopic imaging with a single spinecho sequence - preliminary experience. Radiology 1999;213:919-925.
55. Issa B. In vivo measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in normal and malignant prostatic tissues using echo-planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16:196-200.
56. Hosseinzadeh K, Schwarz SD. Endorectal diffusion-weighted imaging in prostate cancer to differentiate malignant and benign peripheral zone tissue. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:654-661.
57. Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Kumar R, et al. Correlation between metabolite ratios and ADC values of prostate in men with increased PSA level. Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:541-548.
58. Haider MA, van der Kwast TH, Tanguay J, et al. Combined T2-weighted and diffusion-weighted MRI for localization of prostate cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:323-328.
59. 11C-choline PET/CT. Radiology 2007;244:797-806.
60. Reinsberg SA, Payne GS, Riches SF, et al. Combined use of diffusion-weighted MRI and 1H MR spectroscopy to increase accuracy in prostate cancer detection. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:91-98.
61. Kumar V, Jagannathan NR, Kumar R, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient of the prostate in men prior to biopsy: determination of a cut-off value to predict malignancy of the peripheral zone. NMR Biomed 2007;20:505-511.
62. Sato C, Naganawa S, Nakamura T, et al. Differentiation of noncancerous tissue and cancer lesions by apparent diffusion coefficient values in transition and peripheral zones of the prostate. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:258-262.
63. Desouza NM, Reinsberg SA, Scurr ED, Brewster JM, Payne GS. Magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer: the value of apparent diffusion coefficients for identifying malignant nodules. Br J Radiol 2007;80:90-95.
64. Barentsz JO, Engelbrecht M, Jager GJ, et al. Fast dynamic gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of urinary bladder and prostate cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;10:295-304.
65. Futterer JJ, Scheenen TW, Huisman HJ, et al. Initial experience of 3 tesla endorectal coil magnetic resonance imaging and 1H-spectroscopic imaging of the prostate. Invest Radiol 2004;39:671-680.
66. Futterer JJ, Heijmink SW, Scheenen TW, et al. Prostate cancer: local staging at 3-T endorectal MR imaging - early experience. Radiology 2006;238:184-191.
67. Kim DH, Margolis D, Xing L, Daniel B, Spielman D. In vivo prostate magnetic resonance spectroscopic imaging using two-dimensional J-resolved PRESS at 3 T. Magn Reson Med 2005;53:1177-1182.
68. Träber F, Morakkabati-Spitz N, Jaeger U, et al. 1H-MR Spectroscopy of the prostate at 3.0 T with a phase-array surface coil [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the Fourteenth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2006.
69. Trabesinger AH, Meier D, Dydak U, Lamerichs R, Boesiger P. Optimizing PRESS Localized Citrate Detection at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:51-58.
70. Kim CK, Park BK, Kim B. Localization of prostate cancer using 3T MRI: comparison of T2-weighted and dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:7-11.
71. Manenti G, Carlani M, Mancino S, et al. Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging of prostate cancer. Invest Radiol 2007;42:412-419.
72. Pickles MD, Gibbs P, Sreenivas M, Turnbull LW. Diffusion-weighted imaging of normal and malignant prostate tissue at 3.0T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;23:130-134.
73. Kim CK, Park BK, Han JJ, Kang TW, Lee HM. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the prostate at 3 T for differentiation of malignant and benign tissue in transition and peripheral zones: preliminary results. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:449-454.
74. Sosna J, Pedrosa I, Dewolf WC, Mahallati H, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. MR imaging of the prostate at 3 Tesla: comparison of an external phased-array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol 2004;11:857-862.
75. Kim HW, Buckley DL, Peterson DM, et al. In vivo prostate magnetic resonance imaging and magnetic resonance spectroscopy at 3 Tesla using a transceive pelvic phased array coil: preliminary results. Invest Radiol 2003;38:443-451.
76. Park BK, Kim B, Kim CK, Lee HM, Kwon GY. Comparison of phased-array 3.0-T and endorectal 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of local staging accuracy for prostate cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:534-538.
77. Morakkabati-Spitz N, Gieseke J, Kuhl C, et al. 3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences. Eur Radiol 2005;15:639-644.
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. Kim CK, Kim SH, Chun HK, et al. Preoperative staging of rectal cancer: accuracy of 3-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2006;16:972-980.
81. Kim CK, Kim SH, Choi D, et al. Comparison between 3-T magnetic resonance imaging and multi-detector row computed tomography for the preoperative evaluation of rectal cancer. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007;31:853-859.
82. Kataoka M, Isoda H, Maetani Y, et al. MR imaging of the female pelvis at 3 Tesla: evaluation of image homogeneity using different dielectric pads. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:1572-1577.
83. 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.
84. Saupe N, Prussmann KP, Luechinger R, Bosiger P, Marincek B, Weishaupt D. MR imaging of the wrist: comparison between 1.5- and 3-T MR imaging-preliminary experience. Radiology 2005;234:256-264.
85. Gold GE, Suh B, Sawyer-Glover A, Beaulieu C. Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1479-1486.
86. 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.
87. Sundberg TP, Toomayan GA, Major NM. Evaluation of the acetabular labrum at 3.0-T MR imaging compared with 1.5-T MR arthrography: preliminary experience. Radiology 2006;238:706-711.
88. Yoon YC, Kim SS, Chung HW, Choe BK, Ahn JH. Diagnostic efficacy in knee MRI comparing conventional technique and multiplanar reconstruction with one-millimeter FSE PDW images. Acta Radiol 2007;48:869-874.
89. Peh WC, Chan JH. Artifacts in musculoskeletal magnetic resonance imaging: identification and correction. Skeletal Radiol 2001;30:179-191.
90. Bowers ME, Tung GA, Trinh N, et al. Effects of ACL interference screws on articular cartilage volume and thickness measurements with 1.5 T and 3 T MRI. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. Published online October 12, 2007.
91. Li X, Han ET, Ma CB, Link TM, Newitt DC, Majumdar S. In vivo 3T spiral imaging based multi-slice T(1rho) mapping of knee cartilage in osteoarthritis. Magn Reson Med 2005;54:929-936.
92. Link TM, Sell CA, Masi JN, et al. 3.0 vs 1.5 T MRI in the detection of focal cartilage pathology: ROC analysis in an experimental model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2006;14:63-70.
93. Schibany N, Ba-Ssalamah A, Marlovits S, et al. Impact of high field (3.0 T) magnetic resonance imaging on diagnosis of osteochondral defects in the ankle joint. Eur J Radiol 2005;55:283-288.
94. Masi JN, Sell CA, Phan C, et al. Cartilage MR imaging at 3.0 versus that at 1.5 T: preliminary results in a porcine model. Radiology 2005;236:140-150.
95. Kornaat PR, Reeder SB, Koo S, et al. MR imaging of articular cartilage at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of SPGR and SSFP sequences. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:338-344.
96. Weckbach S, Mendlik T, Horger W, Wagner S, Reiser MF, Glaser C. Quantitative assessment of patellar cartilage volume and thickness at 3.0 tesla comparing a 3D-fast low angle shot versus a 3D-true fast imaging with steady-state precession sequence for reproducibility. Invest Radiol 2006;41:189-197.
97. Berg A, Singer T, Moser E. High-resolution diffusivity imaging at 3.0 T for the detection of degenerative changes: a trypsin-based arthritis model. Invest Radiol 2003;38:460-466.
98. Mamisch TC, Menzel MI, Welsch GH, et al. Steady-state diffusion imaging for MR invivo evaluation of reparative cartilage after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation at 3 tesla: preliminary results. Eur J Radiol. Published online October 29, 2007.
99. Trattnig S, Marlovits S, Gebetsroither S, et al. Three-dimensional delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) for in vivo evaluation of reparative cartilage after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation at 3.0 T: preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:974-982.
100. Trattnig S, Mamisch TC, Welsch GH, et al. Quantitative T2 mapping of matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation at 3 Tesla: an in vivo cross-sectional study. Invest Radiol 2007;42:442-448.
101. Link TM, Majumdar S, Peterfy C, et al. High resolution MRI of small joints: impact of spatial resolution on diagnostic performance and SNR. Magn Reson Imaging 1998;16:147-155.
102. Block W, Träber F, Manka C, et al. Real-time functional MRI-guided MR spectroscopy at 3 Tesla: a motor cortex study in healthy controls and patients with ALS [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2003; 2506.
103. Träber F, Block W, Gieseke J, Gür O, Lamerichs R, Schild H. Proton MR spectroscopy of the hippocampus at 3.0 Tesla [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2004; 2279.
104. Hetherington HP, Mason GF, Pan JW, et al. Evaluation of cerebral gray and white matter metabolite differences by spectroscopic imaging at 4.1T. Magn Reson Med 1994;32:565-571.
105. Posse S, Cuenod CA, Risinger R, Le Bihan D, Balaban RS. Anomalous transverse relaxation in 1H spectroscopy in human brain at 4 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 1995;33:246-252.
106. Thompson RB, Allen PS. Sources of variability in the response of coupled spins to the PRESS sequence and their potential impact on metabolite quantification. Magn Reson Med 1999;41:1162-1169.
107. Kelley DA, Wald LL, Star-Lack JM. Lactate detection at 3 T: compensating J coupling effects with BASING. J Magn Reson Imaging 1999;9:732-737.
108. Oz G, Terpstra M, Tkac I, et al. Proton MRS of the unilateral substantia nigra in the human brain at 4 tesla: detection of high GABA concentrations. Magn Reson Med 2006;55:296-301.
109. Träber F, Wattjes MP, Block W, et al. Quantification of white matter myo-inositol by 1H-MRS at 3.0 T: investigations in normal controls and in patients with clinically isolated syndrome (CIS) suggestive of multiple sclerosis [abstr]. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Berkeley, Calif: International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, 2005;1165.
110. Duyn JH, Moonen CT. Fast proton spectroscopic imaging of human brain using multiple spin-echoes. Magn Reson Med 1993;30:409-414.
111. Dydak U, Pruessmann KP, Weiger M, Tsao J, Meier D, Boesiger P. Parallel spectroscopic imaging with spin-echo trains. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:196-200.
112. Forbes KP, Pipe JG, Karis JP, Farthing V, Heiserman JE. Brain imaging in the unsedated pediatric patient: comparison of periodically rotated overlapping parallel lines with enhanced reconstruction and single-shot fast spin-echo sequences. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2003;24:794-798.
113. Hudsmith LE, Petersen SE, Tyler DJ, et al. Determination of cardiac volumes and mass with FLASH and SSFP cine sequences at 1.5 vs 3 Tesla: a validation study. J Magn Reson Imaging 2006;24:312-318.
114. Merkle EM, Dale BM, Thomas J, Paulson EK. MR liver imaging and cholangiography in the presence of surgical metallic clips at 1.5 and 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol 2006;16:2309-2316.