Dual-source parallel RF transmission for diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen using different b values: Image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient comparison with conventional single-source transmission

Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Volumn 37, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 875-885

  Guo, Lijun ^a   Liu, Cheng ^a   Chen, Weibo ^b   Chan, Queenie ^b   Wang, Guangbin ^a  

^a SHANDONG UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b PHILIPS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

Author keywords

apparent diffusion coefficient; b values; diffusion weighted imaging; dual source parallel radiofrequency transmission; image quality; single source radiofrequency transmission

Indexed keywords

ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIFFUSION COEFFICIENT; DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE QUALITY; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LIVER; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SCANNER; PANCREAS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RADIOFREQUENCY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SPLEEN;

ABDOMEN; ADULT; ARTIFACTS; DIFFUSION MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; LIVER; MALE; PANCREAS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERENCE VALUES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SPLEEN;

EID: 84875468263     PISSN: 10531807     EISSN: 15222586     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.23869     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Koh D-M, Collins DJ,. Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 1622-1635. (Pubitemid 46866868)
2. Thoeny HC, De Keyzer F,. Extracranial applications of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Eur Radiol 2007; 17: 1385-1393. (Pubitemid 46767586)
3. Vandecaveye V, De Keyzer F, Verslype C, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI provides additional value to conventional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 2456-2466.
4. 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.
5. Chen CY, Li CW, Kuo YT, et al. Early response of hepatocellular carcinoma to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization: choline levels and MR diffusion constants-initial experience. Radiology 2006; 239: 448-456.
6. Koh DM, Scurr E, Collins D, et al. Predicting response of colorectal hepatic metastasis: value of pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 188: 1001-1008. (Pubitemid 46496932)
7. Roth Y, Tichler T, Kostenich G, et al. High-b-value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for pretreatment prediction and early monitoring of tumor response to therapy in mice. Radiology 2004; 232: 685-692. (Pubitemid 39100249)
8. Papanikolaou N, Gourtsoyianni S, Yarmenitis S, Maris T, Gourtsoyiannis N,. Comparison between two-point and four-point methods for quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient of normal liver parenchyma and focal lesions: value of normalization with spleen. Eur J Radiol 2010; 73: 305-309.
9. Do RK, Chandarana H, Felker E, et al. Diagnosis of liver fibrosis and cirrhosis with diffusion-weighted imaging: value of normalized apparent diffusion coefficient using the spleen as reference organ. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 195: 671-676.
10. Kwee TC, Takahara T, Koh DM, Nievelstein RAJ, Luijten PR,. Comparison and reproducibility of ADC measurements in breathhold, respiratory triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008; 28: 1141-1148.
11. Bilgili MY,. Reproductibility of apparent diffusion coefficients measurements in diffusion-weighted MRI of the abdomen with different b values. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 2066-2068.
12. Dale BM, Braithwaite AC, Boll DT, Merkle EM,. Field strength and diffusion encoding technique affect the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Invest Radiol 2010; 45: 104-108.
13. Chang KJ, Kamel IR, Macura KJ, Bluemke DA,. 3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T. RadioGraphics 2008; 28: 1983-1998.
14. Katscher U, Börnert P,. Parallel RF transmission in MRI. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 393-400. (Pubitemid 43811112)
15. Willinek WA, Gieseke J, Kukuk GM, et al. Dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation body MR imaging compared with standard MR imaging at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. Radiology 2010; 256: 966-975.
16. Kukuk GM, Gieseke J, Weber S, et al. 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 2011; 259: 421-428.
17. Harvey P, Zhai Z, Morich M, et al. SAR behavior during whole-body multitransmit RF shimming at 3.0T. In: Proc 17th Annual Meeting ISMRM, Honolulu; 2009, abstract 4786.
18. Zhu Y,. Parallel excitation with an array of transmit coils. Magn Reson Med 2004; 51: 775-784. (Pubitemid 38420455)
19. Cunningham CH, Pauly JM, Nayak KS,. Saturated double-angle method for rapid B1+mapping. Magn Reson Med 2006; 55: 1326-1333. (Pubitemid 43856770)
20. Heverhagen JT,. Noise measurement and estimation in MR imaging experiments. Radiology 2007; 245: 638-639. (Pubitemid 350127334)
21. Moon WJ,. Measurement of signal-to-noise ratio in MR imaging with sensitivity encoding. Radiology 2007; 243: 908-909.
22. Zhu Y, Giaquinto R,. Improving flip angle uniformity with parallel excitation. In: Proc 13th Annual Meeting ISMRM, Miami; 2005, abstract 2752.
23. 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. (Pubitemid 351770701)
24. 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. (Pubitemid 44406214)
25. Saremi F, Jalili M, Sefidbakht S, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3 T: image quality comparison with 1.5-T magnet using 3 different imaging sequences. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35: 317-325.
26. Kandpal H, Sharma R, Madhusudhan KS, Kapoor KS,. Respiratory-triggered versus breath-hold diffusion-weighted MRI of liver lesions: comparison of image quality and apparent diffusion coeffcient values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009; 192: 915-922.
27. Taouli B, Sandberg A, Stemmer A, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: comparison of navigator triggered and breathhold acquisitions. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009; 30: 561-568.
28. Dietrich O, Heiland S, Sartor K,. Noise correction for the exact determination of apparent diffusion coefficients at low SNR. Magn Reson Med 2001; 45: 448-453. (Pubitemid 32173272)
29. Hollingsworth KG, Lomas DJ,. Influence of perfusion on hepatic MR diffusion measurement. NMR Biomed 2006; 19: 231-235.
30. Kim T, Murakami T, Takahashi S, Hori M, Tsuda K, Nakamura H,. Diffusion-weighted single-shot echoplanar MR imaging for liver disease. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999; 173: 393-398. (Pubitemid 29347365)
31. Schaefer DJ,. Safety aspects of radio-frequency power deposition in magnetic resonance. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1998; 6: 775-789. (Pubitemid 28545968)
32. Shellock FG,. Radiofrequency-induced heating during MR procedures: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 2000; 12: 30-36.