Implementation of dual-source RF excitation in 3 T MR-scanners allows for nearly identical ADC values compared to 1.5 T MR scanners in the abdomen

PLoS ONE

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2012, Pages

  Rao, Raghuram K ^a,b   Riffel, Philipp ^a   Meyer, Mathias ^a   Kettnaker, Paul J ^a   Lemke, Andreas ^a   Haneder, Stefan ^a   Schoenberg, Stefan O ^a   Michaely, Henrik J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF HEIDELBERG   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ADULT; AGED; ANATOMICAL VARIATION; APPARENT DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; ARTICLE; BODY REGIONS; CHILD; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; EXCITATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; IMAGING SYSTEM; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MALE; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RADIOFREQUENCY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; ABDOMEN; ADOLESCENT; DIFFUSION; METABOLISM; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

ABDOMEN; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BIOLOGICAL MARKERS; CHILD; DIFFUSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIO WAVES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 84857677935     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0032613     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Shah B, Anderson SW, Scalera J, Jara H, Soto JA, (2011) Quantitative MR imaging: physical principles and sequence design in abdominal imaging. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 31: 867-880.
2. Saremi F, Knoll AN, Bendavid OJ, Schultze-Haakh H, Narula N, et al. (2009) Characterization of genitourinary lesions with diffusion-weighted imaging. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 29: 1295-1317.
3. Taouli B, Koh DM, (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. Radiology 254: 47-66.
4. Lowenthal D, Zeile M, Lim WY, Wybranski C, Fischbach F, et al. (2011) Detection and characterisation of focal liver lesions in colorectal carcinoma patients: comparison of diffusion-weighted and Gd-EOB-DTPA enhanced MR imaging. European radiology 21: 832-840.
5. Koh DM, Blackledge M, Collins DJ, Padhani AR, Wallace T, et al. (2009) Reproducibility and changes in the apparent diffusion coefficients of solid tumours treated with combretastatin A4 phosphate and bevacizumab in a two-centre phase I clinical trial. European radiology 19: 2728-2738.
6. Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM, Chenevert TL, Thoeny HC, et al. (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11: 102-125.
7. Schmitz BL, Aschoff AJ, Hoffmann MH, Gron G, (2005) Advantages and pitfalls in 3 T MR brain imaging: a pictorial review. AJNR American journal of neuroradiology 26: 2229-2237.
8. Tofts PS, Barker GJ, Dean TL, Gallagher H, Gregory AP, et al. (1997) A low dielectric constant customized phantom design to measure RF coil nonuniformity. Magnetic resonance imaging 15: 69-75.
9. Manenti G, Di Roma M, Mancino S, Bartolucci DA, Palmieri G, et al. (2008) Malignant renal neoplasms: correlation between ADC values and cellularity in diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging at 3 T. La Radiologia medica 113: 199-213.
10. Wang H, Cheng L, Zhang X, Wang D, Guo A, et al. (2010) Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T. Radiology 257: 135-143.
11. Zhang JL, Sigmund EE, Chandarana H, Rusinek H, Chen Q, et al. (2010) Variability of renal apparent diffusion coefficients: limitations of the monoexponential model for diffusion quantification. Radiology 254: 783-792.
12. Dale BM, Braithwaite AC, Boll DT, Merkle EM, (2010) Field strength and diffusion encoding technique affect the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Investigative Radiology 45: 104-108.
13. Kukuk GM, Gieseke J, Weber S, Hadizadeh DR, Nelles M, et al. (2011) Focal liver lesions at 3.0 T: lesion detectability and image quality with T2-weighted imaging by using conventional and dual-source parallel radiofrequency transmission. Radiology 259: 421-428.
14. Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Kukuk GM, Nelles M, Konig R, et al. (2010) Dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation body MR imaging compared with standard MR imaging at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. Radiology 256: 966-975.
15. Schick F, (2005) Whole-body MRI at high field: technical limits and clinical potential. Eur Radiol 15: 946-959.
16. Rosenkrantz AB, Oei M, Babb JS, Niver BE, Taouli B, (2011) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 33: 128-135.
17. Le Bihan D, Breton E, Lallemand D, Aubin ML, Vignaud J, et al. (1988) Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 168: 497-505.
18. Harry VN, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Parkin DE, (2008) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the early detection of response to chemoradiation in cervical cancer. Gynecologic oncology 111: 213-220.
19. Sun YS, Zhang XP, Tang L, Ji JF, Gu J, et al. (2010) Locally advanced rectal carcinoma treated with preoperative chemotherapy and radiation therapy: preliminary analysis of diffusion-weighted MR imaging for early detection of tumor histopathologic downstaging. Radiology 254: 170-178.
20. Tang L, Zhang XP, Sun YS, Shen L, Li J, et al. (2011) Gastrointestinal stromal tumors treated with imatinib mesylate: apparent diffusion coefficient in the evaluation of therapy response in patients. Radiology 258: 729-738.
21. Cui Y, Zhang XP, Sun YS, Tang L, Shen L, (2008) Apparent diffusion coefficient: potential imaging biomarker for prediction and early detection of response to chemotherapy in hepatic metastases. Radiology 248: 894-900.
22. Kamel IR, Reyes DK, Liapi E, Bluemke DA, Geschwind JF, (2007) Functional MR imaging assessment of tumor response after 90Y microsphere treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of vascular and interventional radiology: JVIR 18: 49-56.
23. Doganay S, Kocakoc E, Cicekci M, Aglamis S, Akpolat N, et al. (2011) Ability and utility of diffusion-weighted MRI with different b values in the evaluation of benign and malignant renal lesions. Clinical radiology 66: 420-425.
24. Kim S, Jain M, Harris AB, Lee VS, Babb JS, et al. (2009) T1 hyperintense renal lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 251: 796-807.
25. Razek AA, Farouk A, Mousa A, Nabil N, (2011) Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in characterization of renal tumors. Journal of computer assisted tomography 35: 332-336.
26. Sandrasegaran K, Sundaram CP, Ramaswamy R, Akisik FM, Rydberg MP, et al. (2010) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of renal masses. AJR American journal of roentgenology 194: 438-445.
27. Taouli B, Thakur RK, Mannelli L, Babb JS, Kim S, et al. (2009) Renal lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 251: 398-407.
28. Li Y, Chen Z, Wang J, (2011) Differential diagnosis between malignant and benign hepatic tumors using apparent diffusion coefficient on 1.5-T MR imaging: A meta analysis. European journal of radiology.