Liver MRI at 3 T using a respiratory-triggered time-efficient 3D T2-weighted technique: Impact on artifacts and image quality

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 194, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 634-641

  Rosenkrantz, Andrew B ^a   Patel, Jignesh M ^a   Babb, James S ^a   Storey, Pippa ^a   Hecht, Elizabeth M ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

3 T MRI; Image quality; Liver MRI; Motion artifact; Sampling perfection with application optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolutions (SPACE); Turbo spin echo imaging

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; FEMALE; GALLBLADDER; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; KIDNEY; LIVER INJURY; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPLEEN;

ARTIFACTS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; LIVER DISEASES; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RESPIRATORY-GATED IMAGING TECHNIQUES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 77749277542     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2994     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Akisik FM, Sandrasegaran K, Aisen AM, Lin C, Lall C. Abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radio-Graphics 2007; 27:1433-1444
2. Barth MM, Smith MP, Pedrosa I, Lenkinski RE, Rofsky NM. Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges. Radio-Graphics 2007; 27:1445-1462
3. Choi JY, Kim MJ, Chung YE, et al. Abdominal applications of 3.0-T MR imaging: comparative review versus a 1.5-T system. RadioGraphics 2008; 28:e30
4. Lee VS, Hecht EM, Taouli B, Chen Q, Prince K, Oesingmann N. Body and cardiovascular MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2007; 244:692-705
5. Merkle EM, Dale BM. Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR 2006; 186:1524-1532
6. Tsurusaki M, Semelka RC, Zapparoli M, et al. Quantitative and qualitative comparison of 3.0T and 1.5T MR imaging of the liver in patients with diffuse parenchymal liver disease. Eur J Radiol 2009; 72:314-320
7. Zapparoli M, Semelka RC, Altun E, et al. 3.0-T MRI evaluation of patients with chronic liver diseases: initial observations. Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 26:650-660
8. 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
9. Lichy MP, Wietek BM, Mugler JP 3rd, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the body trunk using a single-slab, 3-dimensional, T2-weighted turbospin-echo sequence with high sampling efficiency (SPACE) for high spatial resolution imaging: initial clinical experiences. Invest Radiol 2005; 40:754-760
10. Busse RF. Reduced RF power without blurring: correcting for modulation of refocusing flip angle in FSE sequences. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51:1031-1037
11. Busse RF, Hariharan H, Vu A, Brittain JH. Fast spin echo sequences with very long echo trains: design of variable refocusing flip angle schedules and generation of clinical T2 contrast. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55:1030-1037
12. Busse RF, Brau AC, Vu A, et al. Effects of refocusing flip angle modulation and view ordering in 3D fast spin echo. Magn Reson Med 2008; 60:640-649
13. Mugler JP 3rd, Bao S, Mulkern RV, et al. Optimized single-slab three-dimensional spin-echo MR imaging of the brain. Radiology 2000; 216:891-899
14. Haystead CM, Dale BM, Merkle EM. N/2 ghosting artifacts: elimination at 3.0-T MR cholangiography with SPACE pulse sequence. Radiology 2008; 246:589-595
15. Arizono S, Isoda H, Maetani YS, et al. High spatial resolution 3D MR cholangiography with high sampling efficiency technique (SPACE): comparison of 3T vs. 1.5T. Eur J Radiol 2008 Sep 30 [Epub ahead of print]
16. Arizono S, Isoda H, Maetani YS, et al. Highspatial-resolution three-dimensional MR cholangiography using a high-sampling-efficiency technique (SPACE) at 3T: comparison with the conventional constant flip angle sequence in healthy volunteers. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28:685-690
17. International Electrotechnical Commission. Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. London, UK: International Electrotechnical Commission, 2002: publication no. IEC 60601-2-33
18. Franklin KM, Dale BM, Merkle EM. Improvement in B1-inhomogeneity artifacts in the abdomen at 3T MR imaging using a radiofrequency cushion. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 27:1443-1447
19. 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
20. Saekho S, Boada FE, Noll DC, Stenger VA. Small tip angle three-dimensional tailored radiofrequency slab-select pulse for reduced B1 inhomogeneity at 3 T. Magn Reson Med 2005; 53:479-484
21. Setsompop K, Wald LL, Alagappan V, et al. Parallel RF transmission with eight channels at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 2006; 56:1163-1171
22. Park J, Mugler JP, Hughes T. Reduction of B1 sensitivity in selective single-slab 3D turbo spin-echo imaging with very long echo trains. Magn Reson Med 2009; 62:1060-1066
23. Kellman P, McVeigh ER. Image reconstruction in SNR units: a general method for SNR measurement. Magn Reson Med 2005; 54:1439-1447
24. Dietrich O, Raya JG, Reeder SB, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. Measurement of signal-to-noise ratios in MR images: influence of multichannel coils, parallel imaging, and reconstruction filters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26:375-385
25. Heverhagen JT. Noise measurement and estimation in MR imaging experiments. Radiology 2007; 245:638-639
26. Cornfeld DM, Israel G, McCarthy SM, Weinreb JC. Pelvic imaging using a T1W fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo Dixon technique at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28:121-127
27. Kim T, Murakami T, Hori M, Onishi H, Tomoda K, Nakamura H. Effect of superparamagnetic iron oxide on tumor-to-liver contrast at T2*-weighted gradient-echo MRI: comparison between 3.0T and 1.5T MR systems. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 29:595-600