Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Routinely Postprocessed (CLEAR) CE-MRA Data Sets. Are SNR and CNR Calculations Reliable?

Academic Radiology

Volumn 15, Issue 9, 2008, Pages 1111-1117

  Buerke, Boris ^a   Allkemper, Thomas ^a   Kugel, Harald ^a,b   Bremer, Christoph ^a   Evers, Stefan ^a   Kooijman, Hendrik ^a,b   Heindel, Walter ^a   Tombach, Bernd ^a,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MÜNSTER   (Germany)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^c Department of Radiology and Radiation Therapy ^*  (Germany)

Author keywords

comparison study; contrast agent; image post processing; Magnetic resonance angiography

Indexed keywords

GADOBUTROL;

ADULT; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; CALCULATION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COMMON CAROTID ARTERY; CONTINUOUS INFUSION; CONTRAST; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEASIBILITY STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; INTERNAL CAROTID ARTERY; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE; NOISE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOLOGIST; RELIABILITY; SCORING SYSTEM; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SOFT TISSUE; STANDARD; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

ADULT; ALGORITHMS; AUTOMATIC DATA PROCESSING; CAROTID ARTERY, COMMON; CAROTID ARTERY, INTERNAL; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HEADACHE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MALE;

EID: 48649090984     PISSN: 10766332     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.04.002     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Wetzel S., and Bongartz G. MR angiography: supra-aortic vessels. Eur Radiol 9 (1999) 1277-1284
2. Heisermann J.E., Dean B.L., and Hodak J.A. Neurologic complications of cerebral angiography. Am J Neuroradiol 15 (1994) 1401-1407
3. Randoux B., Marro B., Koskas F., et al. Proximal great vessels of aortic arch: comparison of three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced MR angiography and digital subtraction angiography. Radiology 229 (2003) 697-702
4. Remonda L., Senn P., Barth A., et al. Contrast-enhanced 3D angiography of the carotid artery; comparison with conventional digital subtraction angiography. AJNR 23 (2002) 213-219
5. Willinek W.A., Falkkenhausen M., Born M., et al. Noninvasive detection of steno-occlusive disease of the supra-aortic arteries with three-dimensional contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Stroke 36 (2005) 38-43
6. Leclerc X., Nicol L., Gauvrit J.Y., et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of supraaortic vessels: the effect of voxel size on image quality. Am J Neuroradiol 21 (2000) 1482-1490
7. Ohliger M.A., Grant A.K., and Sodickson D.K. Ultimate intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio for parallel MRI: electromagnetic field considerations. Magn Reson Med 50 (2003) 1018-1030
8. Weiger M., Pruessmann K.P., and Boesiger P. Cardiac real-time imaging using SENSE. Magn Reson Med 43 (2000) 177-184
9. Weiger M., Pruessmann K.P., Kassner A., et al. Contrast-enhanced 3D MRA using SENSE. J Magn Reson Imag 12 (2000) 671-677
10. Stehling M.K., Niedermeyer M., and Laub G. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography. Theory, technique and practical application. Radiologe 37 (1997) 501-507
11. de Vries M., Nijenhuis R.J., Hoogeveen R.M., et al. Contrast-enhanced peripheral MR angiography using SENSE in multiple stations: feasibility study. J Magn Reson Imaging 21 (2005) 37-45
12. Pruessmann K.P., Weiger M., Scheidegger M.B., et al. SENSE: sensitivity encoding for fast MRI. Magn Reson Med 42 (1999) 952-962
13. Born M., Willinek W.A., Gieseke J., et al. Sensitivity encoding (SENSE) for contrast-enhanced 3D MR angiography of the abdominal arteries. J Magn Reson Imaging 22 (2005) 559-565
14. van den Brink J.S., Watanabe Y., Kuhl C.K., et al. Implications of SENSE MR in routine clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 46 (2003) 3-27
15. Willinek W.A., 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 176 (2004) 21-26
16. Baierl P., Seiderer M., Hewang S., et al. Das Kontrastrauschverhältnis als Maß für den Gewebekontrast in der Kernspintomographie. Digit Bilddiagn 6 (1986) 101-110
17. Edelstein W.A., Bottomley P.A., Hart H.R., et al. Signal, noise and contrast in NMR imaging. J Comp Assist Tomogr 7 (1986) 391-401
18. Hart H.R., Bottomley P.A., Edelstein W.A., et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: Contrast-to-noise ratio as a function of strength of magnetic field. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141 (1983) 1195-1201
19. Crooks L.E., Hoenninger J., Arakawa M., et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology 150 (1984) 163-171
20. Kaufman L., Kramer D.M., Crooks L.E., and Ortendahl D.A. Measuring signal-to-noise ratios in MR imaging. Radiology 173 (1989) 265-267
21. Kellman P., and McVeigh E.R. Image reconstruction in SNR units: a general method for SNR measurement. Magn Reson Med 54 (2005) 1439-1447
22. Dietrich O., Raya J.G., Reeder S.B., et al. Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 26 (2007) 375-385
23. Reeder S.B., Herzka D.A., and McVeigh E.R. Signal-to-noise ratio behavior of steady state free precession. Magn Reson Med 52 (2004) 123-130
24. Muthupillai R., Vick III G.W., Flamm S.D., et al. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography in pediatric patients using sensitivity encoding. J Magn Reson Imaging 17 (2003) 559-564
25. Ohno Y., Kawamitsu H., Higashino T., et al. Time-resolved contrast-enhanced pulmonary MR angiography using sensitivity encoding (SENSE). J Magn Reson Imaging 17 (2003) 330-336
26. Tanaka O., Ito H., Yamada K., et al. Higher lesion conspicuity for SENSE dynamic MRI in detecting hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis through the measurements of liver SNR and lesion-liver CNR comparison with conventional dynamic MRI. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 2427-2434
27. Ryan M., Cunningham P., Cantwell C., et al. A comparison of fast MRI of hips with and without parallel imaging using SENSE. Br J Radiol 78 (2005) 299-302
28. Fenchel M., Requardt M., Tomaschko K., et al. Whole-body MR angiography using a novel 32-receiving-channel MR system with surface coil technology: first clinical experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 21 (2005) 596-603
29. Unterweger M., Froehlich J.M., Kubik-Huch R.A., et al. Dose optimization of contrast-enhanced carotid MR angiography. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 1797-1805
30. Leclerc X., Nicol L., Gauvrit J.Y., et al. Contrast-enhanced MR angiography of supraaortic vessels: the effect of voxel size on image quality. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 21 (2000) 1021-1027
31. Goyen M., Herborn C.U., Vogt F.M., et al. Using a 1 M Gd-chelate (gadobutrol) for total-body three-dimensional MR angiography: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 17 (2003) 565-571
32. Al-Kwifi O., Shelef I., Farb R.I., et al. High-resolution imaging of the intracranial arterial and venous systems following a single contrast injection. J Magn Reson Imaging 24 (2006) 267-273
33. Goyen M., Quick H.H., Debatin J.F., et al. Whole-body three-dimensional MR angiography with a rolling table platform: initial clinical experience. Radiology 224 (2002) 270-277
34. Leiner T., de Vries M., Hoogeveen R., et al. Contrast-enhanced peripheral MR angiography at 3.0 Tesla: initial experience with a whole-body scanner in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 17 (2003) 609-614
35. Ogura A., Maeda F., Miyai A., et al. Accuracy of contrast-to-noise ratio measurement for magnetic resonance clinical images. Nippon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 60 (2004) 1543-1549
36. Ohliger M.A., Grant A.K., and Sodickson D.K. Ultimate intrinsic signal-to-noise ratio for parallel MRI: electromagnetic field considerations. Magn Reson Med 50 (2003) 1018-1030
37. Edelstein W.A., Bottomley P.A., Hart H.R., et al. Signal, noise, and contrast in nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 7 (1983) 391-401
38. Hart Jr. H.R., Bottomley P.A., Edelstein W.A., et al. Nuclear magnetic resonance imaging: contrast-to-noise ratio as a function of strength of magnetic field. AJR Am J Roentgenol 141 (1983) 1195-1201