Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MR imaging of the liver in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease

European Journal of Radiology

Volumn 72, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 314-320

  Tsurusaki, Masakatsu ^a,b   Semelka, Richard C ^a   Zapparoli, Mauricio ^a   Elias Jr , Jorge ^a,c   Altun, Ersan ^a   Pamuklar, Ertan ^a   Sugimura, Kazuro ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b KOBE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Chronic liver disease; Liver MRI; MRI

Indexed keywords

BREATH-HOLD; CHRONIC LIVER DISEASE; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; EQUILIBRIUM PHASIS; GRADIENT ECHO; INVERSION RECOVERY; LIVER DISEASE; LIVER MRI; MR IMAGING; PORTAL VEINS; QUALITATIVE ADVANTAGES; QUALITATIVE DATA; QUALITATIVE IMAGES; QUANTITATIVE IMAGE ANALYSIS; RANK TEST; SIGNAL CHARACTERISTIC; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY; GADOLINIUM; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; LIVER; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MEDICAL IMAGING; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO;

QUALITY CONTROL;

GADODIAMIDE;

ABDOMEN; ADULT; AGED; ALCOHOL LIVER DISEASE; ARTICLE; ARTIFACT; BREATH HOLDING; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONTINUOUS INFUSION; CONTRAST TO NOISE RATIO; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEPATITIS B; HEPATITIS C; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER PARENCHYMA; MALE; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; NONALCOHOLIC FATTY LIVER; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PORTAL VEIN; PRIMARY SCLEROSING CHOLANGITIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; VOLUMETRY; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIVER; LIVER DISEASES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 71849117321     PISSN: 0720048X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.07.027     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Norris D.G. High field human imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 18 (2003) 519-529
2. Frayne R., Goodyear B.G., Dickhoff P., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging at 3. 0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neuroimaging. Invest Radiol 38 (2003) 385-402
3. Merkle E.M., and Dale B.M. Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 (2006) 1524-1532
4. Merkle E.M., Dale B.M., and Paulson E.K. Abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 14 1 (2006) 17-26
5. Wolfsberger S., Ba-Ssalamah A., Pinker K., et al. Application of three-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and surgery of sellar lesions. J Neurosurg 100 (2004) 278-286
6. Barth M., Nobauer-Huhmann I., Reichenbach J., et al. High-resolution three-dimensional contrast-enhanced blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance venography of brain tumors at 3.0 Tesla: first clinical experience and comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 38 (2003) 409-414
7. Graf H., Schick F., Claussen C., et al. MR visualization of the inner ear structures: comparison of 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla images. Rofo Fortschr Geb Rontgenstr Neuen Bildgeb Verfahr 176 (2004) 17-20
8. Ludescher B., Martirosian P., Lenk S., et al. High-resolution magnetic resonance imaging of trabecular bone in the wrist at 3.0 T: initial results. Acta Radiol 46 (2005) 306-309
9. Sasaki M., Shibata E., Kanbara Y., and Ehara S. Enhancement effects and relaxivities of gadolinium-DTPA at 1.5 T versus 3 Tesla: a phantom study. Magn Reson Med Sci 4 (2005) 145-149
10. Nobauer-Huhmann I.M., Ba-Ssalamah A., Mlynarik V., et al. Magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement of brain tumors at 3 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 37 (2002) 114-119
11. Rofsky N.M., Lee V.S., Laub G., et al. Abdominal MR imaging with a volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination. Radiology 212 (1999) 876-884
12. Lee V.S., Lavelle M.T., Rofsky N.M., et al. Hepatic MR imaging with a dynamic contrast-enhanced isotropic volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination: feasibility, reproducibility, and technical quality. Radiology 215 (2000) 365-372
13. McKenzie C.A., Lim D., Ransil B.J., et al. Shortening MR image acquisition time for volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination with a recently developed parallel imaging reconstruction technique: clinical feasibility. Radiology 230 (2004) 589-594
14. Birchard K.R., Semelka R.C., Hyslop W.B., et al. Suspected pancreatic cancer: evaluation by dynamic gadolinium-enhanced 3d gradient-echo MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185 (2005) 700-703
15. Hecht E.M., Holland A.E., Israel G.M., et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in the cirrhotic liver: gadolinium-enhanced 3D T1-weighted MR imaging as a stand-alone sequence for diagnosis. Radiology 239 (2006) 438-447
16. Danrad R., and Martin D.R. MR imaging of diffuse liver diseases. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 13 (2005) 277-293
17. Sosna J., Rofsky N., Pedrosa I., et al. MR imaging of the prostate at 3.0 Tesla: comparison of an external phased array coil to imaging with an endorectal coil at 1.5 Tesla. Acad Radiol 11 (2004) 857-862
18. Lutterbey G., Gieseke J., von Falkenhausen M., Morakkabati N., and Schild H. Lung MRI at 3.0 T: a comparison of helical CT and high-field MRI in the detection of diffuse lung disease. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 324-328
19. Kramer S.C., Wall A., Maintz D., Bachmann R., and Kugel H. Heindel W 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance angiography of endovascular aortic stent grafts: phantom measurements in comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 39 (2004) 413-417
20. Schick F. Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 15 (2005) 946-959
21. Merkle E.M., Haugan P.A., Thomas J., Jaffe T.A., and Gullotto C. MR cholangiography: 3.0 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla-a pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186 (2006) 516-521
22. de Bezelaire C.M., Duhamel G.D., Rofsky N.M., and Alsop DC. MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. Radiology 230 (2004) 652-659
23. Edelman R.R., 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 41 (2006) 175-180
24. Willinek W.A., 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 229 (2003) 913-920
25. 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 15 (2005) 639-644
26. von Falkenhausen M.M., 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 241 (2006) 156-166
27. Bader T.R., Semelka R.C., Pedro M.S., Armao D.M., Brown M.A., and Molina P.L. Magnetic resonance imaging of pulmonary parenchymal disease using a modified breath-hold 3D gradient-echo technique: initial observations. J Magn Reson Imaging 15 (2002) 31-38
28. Lauenstein T.C., Freudenberg L.S., Goehde S.C., et al. Whole-body MRI using a rolling table platform for the detection of bone metastases. Eur Radiol 12 (2002) 2091-2099
29. Lauenstein T.C., Goehde S.C., Herborn C.U., et al. Whole-body MR imaging: evaluation of patients for metastases. Radiology 233 (2004) 139-148
30. Lauenstein T.C., Goehde S.C., Herborn C.U., et al. Three-dimensional volumetric interpolated breath-hold MR imaging for whole-body tumor staging in less than 15 minutes: a feasibility study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179 (2002) 445-449
31. Semelka R.C., Cem Balci N., Wilber K.P., et al. Breath-hold 3D gradient-echo MR imaging of the lung parenchyma: evaluation of reproducibility of image quality in normals and preliminary observations in patients with disease. J Magn Reson Imaging 11 (2000) 195-200
32. Semelka R.C., Willms A.B., Brown M.A., et al. Comparison of breathhold T1-weighted MR sequences for imaging of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 212 (1994) 876-884
33. Hussain S.M., Wielopolski P.A., and Martin D.R. Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T: problem or a promise for the future?. Top Magn Reson Imaging 16 (2005) 325-335