3.0-T MR imaging of the Abdomen: Comparison with 1.5 T

Radiographics

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2008, Pages 1983-1998

  Chang, Kevin J ^a   Kamel, Ihab R ^a   Macura, Katarzyna J ^a   Bluemke, David A ^a  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMEN; COMPARATIVE STUDY; HUMAN; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; METHODOLOGY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; REVIEW;

ABDOMEN; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

EID: 58149389519     PISSN: 02715333     EISSN: 15271323     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/rg.287075154     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Gonen O, Gruber S, Li BS, Mlynarik V, Moser E. Multivoxel 3D proton spectroscopy in the brain at 1.5 versus 3.0 T: signal-to-noise ratio and resolution comparison. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2001; 22:1727-1731.
2. Kruger G, Kastrup A, Glover GH. Neuroimaging at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: comparison of oxygenation- sensitive magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:595-604.
3. 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.
4. Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B, et al. Time-offlight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging-initial experience. Radiology 2003;229:913-920.
5. Barker PB, Hearshen DO, Boska MD. Single-voxel proton MRS of the human brain at 1.5T and 3.0T. Magn Reson Med 2001;45:765-769.
6. Hunsche S, Moseley ME, Stoeter P, Hedehus M. Diffusion-tensor MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T: initial observations. Radiology 2001;221:550-556.
7. Mosher TJ. Musculoskeletal imaging at 3T: current techniques and future applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14:63-76.
8. Ramnath RR. 3T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system: clinical applications. II. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14:41-62.
9. Ramnath RR. 3T MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system: considerations, coils, and challenges. I. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14: 27-40.
10. Barth MM, Smith MP, Pedrosa I, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges. RadioGraphics 2007;27:1445-1462; discussion 1462-1464.
11. 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.
12. Bushberg J. The essential physics of medical imaging. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2002; xvi, 933.
13. Elster AD. How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol 1997;7(suppl 5):276-280.
14. Fukatsu H. 3T MR for clinical use: update. Magn Reson Med Sci 2003;2:37-45.
15. 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.
16. Fullerton G. Physiologic basis of magnetic relaxation. In: Stark D, WG Bradley J, eds. Magnetic resonance imaging, 2nd ed. St. Louis, Mo: Mosby-Year Book, 1992; 88-108.
17. Lewin JS, Duerk JL, Jain VR, Petersilge CA, Chao CP, Haaga JR. Needle localization in MR-guided biopsy and aspiration: effects of field strength, sequence design, and magnetic field orientation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166:1337-1345.
18. Olsrud J, Latt J, Brockstedt S, Romner B, Bjorkman-Burtscher IM. Magnetic resonance imaging artifacts caused by aneurysm clips and shunt valves: dependence on field strength (1.5 and 3 T) and imaging parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005; 22:433-437.
19. Chang JM, Lee JM, Lee MW, et al. Superpara-magnetic 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.
20. 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.
21. Li LP, Vu AT, Li BS, Dunkle E, Prasad PV. Evaluation of intrarenal oxygenation by BOLD MRI at 3.0 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2004;20:901-904.
22. Wehrli FW, Perkins TG, Shimakawa A, Roberts F. Chemical shift-induced amplitude modulations in images obtained with gradient refocusing. Magn Reson Imaging 1987;5:157-158.
23. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Public health advisory: gadolinium-containing contrast agents for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI): Omniscan, OptiMARK, Magnevist, ProHance, and Multi-Hance. http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/gadolinium_agents.htm. Created June 8, 2006. Updated May 23, 2007. Accessed March 26, 2007.
24. van Vaals JJ, Brummer ME, Dixon WT, et al. "Keyhole" method for accelerating imaging of contrast agent uptake. J Magn Reson Imaging 1993;3:671-675.
25. 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.
26. Isoda H, Kataoka M, Maetani Y, et al. MRCP imaging at 3.0 T vs. 1.5 T: preliminary experience in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 25:1000-1006.
27. Kamel IR, Bluemke DA, Ramsey D, et al. Role of diffusion-weighted imaging in estimating tumor necrosis after chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:708-710.
28. Chow LC, Bammer R, Moseley ME, Sommer FG. Single breath-hold diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. J Magn Reson Imaging 2003;18: 377-382.
29. Murtz P, Flacke S, Traber F, van den Brink JS, Gieseke J, Schild HH. Abdomen: diffusion-weighted MR imaging with pulse-triggered single-shot sequences. Radiology 2002;224:258-264.
30. Ichikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J, Nitatori T, Araki T. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with single-shot echo-planar imaging in the upper abdomen: preliminary clinical experience in 61 patients. Abdom Imaging 1999;24:456-461.
31. Koh DM, Collins DJ. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1622-1635.
32. Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. Diffusionweighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:682-687.
33. Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, et al. Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging. Radiology 2008; 246:812-822.
34. Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Nawano S, et al. Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2006; 239:122-130.
35. Low RN, Gurney J. Diffusion-weighted MRI (DWI) in the oncology patient: value of breathhold DWI compared to unenhanced and gadolinium-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;25: 848-858.
36. 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.
37. Ichikawa T, Erturk SM, Motosugi U, et al. High-B-value diffusion-weighted MRI in colorectal cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;187:181-184.
38. Squillaci E, Manenti G, Di Stefano F, Miano R, Strigari L, Simonetti G. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of renal tumours. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2004;23:39-45.
39. Takahara T, Imai Y, Yamashita T, Yasuda S, Nasu S, Van Cauteren M. Diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS): technical improvement using free breathing, STIR and high resolution 3D display. Radiat Med 2004;22:275-282.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. Gruetter R, Weisdorf SA, Rajanayagan V, et al. Resolution improvements in in vivo 1H NMR spectra with increased magnetic field strength. J Magn Reson 1998;135:260-264.
43. Katz-Brull R, Rofsky NM, Lenkinski RE. Breathhold abdominal and thoracic proton MR spectroscopy at 3T. Magn Reson Med 2003;50:461-467.
44. Scheenen TW, Heijmink SW, Roell SA, et al. Three-dimensional proton MR spectroscopy of human prostate at 3 T without endorectal coil: feasibility. Radiology 2007;245:507-516.
45. 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.
46. Hennig J, Scheffler K. Hyperechoes. Magn Reson Med 2001;46:6-12.
47. Hennig J, Weigel M, Scheffler K. Multiecho sequences with variable refocusing flip angles: optimization of signal behavior using smooth transitions between pseudo steady states (TRAPS). Magn Reson Med 2003;49:527-535.
48. Pruessmann KP. Parallel imaging at high field strength: synergies and joint potential. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2004;15:237-244.
49. Collins CM, Liu W, Schreiber W, Yang QX, Smith MB. Central brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonance. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:192-196.
50. Semelka RC, Martin DR, Hussain SM, Balci NC. Body MR imaging: current practice and future horizons [abstr]. In: Radiological Society of North America Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting Program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2006; 186.
51. Merkle EM, Dale BM, Paulson EK. Abdominal MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006;14:17-26.
52. Vaughan JT, Adriany G, Snyder CJ, et al. Efficient high-frequency body coil for high-field MRI. Magn Reson Med 2004;52:851-859.
53. Lee JH, Garwood M, Menon R, et al. High contrast and fast three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging at high fields. Magn Reson Med 1995;34:308-312.
54. Wolff SD, Eng J, Balaban RS. Magnetization transfer contrast: method for improving contrast in gradient-recalled-echo images. Radiology 1991;179: 133-137.
55. Shellock FG. Biomedical implants and devices: assessment of magnetic field interactions with a 3.0-Tesla MR system. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16:721-732.
56. Shellock FG, Tkach JA, Ruggieri PM, Masaryk TJ. Cardiac pacemakers, ICDs, and loop recorder: evaluation of translational attraction using conventional ("long-bore") and "short-bore" 1.5-and 3.0-Tesla MR systems. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2003;5:387-397.