Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

24-02-2024 | Research Article

Diffusion weighted imaging combining respiratory triggering and navigator echo tracking in the upper abdomen

Authors: Yoshihiko Tachikawa, Hiroshi Hamano, Naoya Chiwata, Hikaru Yoshikai, Kento Ikeda, Yasunori Maki, Yukihiko Takahashi, Makiko Koike

Published in: Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine

Login to get access

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate a new motion correction method, named RT + NV Track, for upper abdominal DWI that combines the respiratory triggering (RT) method using a respiration sensor and the Navigator Track (NV Track) method using navigator echoes.

Materials and methods

To evaluate image quality acquired upper abdominal DWI and ADC images with RT, NV, and RT + NV Track in 10 healthy volunteers and 35 patients, signal-to-noise efficiency (SNRefficiency) and the coefficient of variation (CV) of ADC values were measured. Five radiologists independently performed qualitative image-analysis assessments.

Results

RT + NV Track showed significantly higher SNRefficiency than RT and NV (14.01 ± 4.86 vs 12.05 ± 4.65, 10.05 ± 3.18; p < 0.001, p < 0.001). RT + NV Track was superior to RT and equal or better quality than NV in CV and visual evaluation of ADC values (0.033 ± 0.018 vs 0.080 ± 0.042, 0.057 ± 0.034; p < 0.001, p < 0.001). RT + NV Track tends to acquire only expiratory data rather than NV, even in patients with relatively rapid breathing, and can correct for respiratory depth variations, a weakness of RT, thus minimizing image quality degradation.

Conclusion

The RT + NV Track method is an efficient imaging method that combines the advantages of both RT and NV methods in upper abdominal DWI, providing stably good images in a short scan time.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Vilgrain V, Esvan M, Ronot M, Caumont-Prim A, Aubé C, Chatellier G (2016) A meta-analysis of diffusion-weighted and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases. Eur Radiol 26:4595–4615CrossRefPubMed
2.
Katsuhiro N, Kuroki Y, Nawano S et al (2006) Hepatic metastases: diffusion-weighted sensitivity-encoding versus SPIO-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 239:122–130CrossRef
3.
4.
Piana G, Trinquart L, Meskine N, Barrau V, Van Beers B, Vilgrain V (2011) New MR imaging criteria with a diffusion-weighted sequence for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic liver diseases. J Hepatol 55:126–132CrossRefPubMed
5.
Vandecaveye V, De Keyzer F, Verslype C et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted MRI provides additional value to conventional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. Eur Radiol 19:2456–2466CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
Van Den Bos IC, Hussain SM, Krestin GP, Wielopolski PA (2008) Liver imaging at 3.0 T: Diffusion-induced black-blood echo-planar imaging with large anatomic volumetric coverage as an alternative for specific absorption rate-intensive echo-train spin-echo sequences: feasibility study. Radiology 248:264–271CrossRefPubMed
8.
Coenegrachts K, Delanote J, Ter Beek L et al (2007) Improved focal liver lesion detection: comparison of single-shot diffusion-weighted echoplanar and single-shot T2 weighted turbo spin echo techniques. Br J Radiol 80:524–531CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
d’Assignies G, Fina P, Bruno O et al (2013) High sensitivity of diffusion-weighted mr imaging for the detection of liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors: comparison with t2-weighted and dynamic gadolinium-enhanced mr imaging. Radiology 268:390–399CrossRefPubMed
11.
Roth Y, Tichler T, Kostenich G et al (2004) High-b value diffusion-weighted MR imaging for pretreatment prediction and early monitoring of tumor response to therapy in mice. Radiology 232:685–692CrossRefPubMed
12.
13.
Naganawa S, Kawai H, Fukatsu H et al (2005) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: technical challenges and prospects for the future. Magn Reson Med Sci 4:175–186CrossRefPubMed
14.
Ichikawa T, Haradome H, Hachiya J et al (1998) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with a single-shot echoplanar sequence: detection and characterization of focal hepatic lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170:397–402CrossRefPubMed
15.
Taouli B, Chouli M, Martin AJ et al (2008) Chronic hepatitis: role of diffusion-weighted imaging and diffusion tensor imaging for the diagnosis of liver fibrosis and inflammation. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:89–95CrossRefPubMed
16.
Girometti R, Furlan A, Bazzocchi M et al (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI in evaluating liver fibrosis: a feasibility study in cirrhotic patients. Radiol Med (Torino) 112:394–408CrossRefPubMed
17.
Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS et al (2008) Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging. Radiology 246:812–822CrossRefPubMed
18.
Choi JS et al (2013) Comparison of breathhold, navigator-triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MRI for focal hepatic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:109–118ADSCrossRefPubMed
19.
Kwee TC, Takahara T, Koh DM, Nievelstein RAJ, Luijten PR (2008) Comparison and reproducibility of ADC measurements in breathhold, respiratory triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:1141–1148CrossRefPubMed
20.
Takayama Y, Nishie A, Asayama Y et al (2015) Optimization and clinical feasibility of free-breathing diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: comparison with respiratory-triggered diffusion-weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 14:123–132CrossRefPubMed
21.
Chen X, Qin L, Pan D et al (2014) Liver diffusion-weighted MR imaging: reproducibility comparison of ADC measurements obtained with multiple breath-hold, free-breathing, respiratory-triggered, and navigator-triggered techniques. Radiology 271(1):113–125CrossRefPubMed
22.
Xie S, Masokano IB, Liu W et al (2021) Comparing the clinical utility of single-shot echo-planar imaging and readout-segmented echo-planar imaging in diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3 tesla. Eur J Radiol 135:109472CrossRefPubMed
23.
Bruegel M, Holzapfel K, Gaa J et al (2008) Characterization of focal liver lesions by ADC measurements using a respiratory triggered diffusion-weighted single-shot echo-planar MR imaging technique. Eur Radiol 18:477–485CrossRefPubMed
24.
Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Sekiguchi R, Nawano S (2006) The effect of simultaneous use of respiratory triggering in diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver. Magn Reson Med Sci 5:129–136CrossRefPubMed
25.
Kandpal H, Sharma R, Madhusudhan KS, Kapoor KS (2009) Respiratory-triggered versus breath-hold diffusion-weighted MRI of liver lesions: comparison of image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:915–922CrossRefPubMed
26.
Taouli B, Sandberg A, Stemmer A et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: comparison of navigator triggered and breathhold acquisitions. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:561–568CrossRefPubMed
27.
Gourtsoyianni S, Papanikolaou N, Yarmenitis S et al (2008) Respiratory gated diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: value of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in the differentiation between most commonly encountered benign and malignant focal liver lesions. Eur Radiol 18:486–492CrossRefPubMed
28.
Choi JS, Kim MJ, Chung YE et al (2013) Comparison of breath-hold, navigator-triggered, and free-breathing diffusion-weighted MRI for focal hepatic lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:109–118CrossRefPubMed
29.
Li C, Magland JF, Rad HS et al (2012) Comparison of optimized soft-tissue suppression schemes for ultra-short echo time (UTE) MRI. Magn Reson Med 68:680–689CrossRefPubMed
30.
Mürtz P, Flacke S, Träber F et al (2002) Abdomen: diffusion-weighted MR imaging with pulse-triggered single-shot sequences. Radiology 224:258–264CrossRefPubMed
31.
Nasu K, Kuroki Y, Sekiguchi R et al (2006) Measurement of the apparent diffusion coefficient in the liver: is it a reliable index for hepatic disease diagnosis? Radiat Med 24:438–444CrossRefPubMed
32.
Kandpal H, Sharma R, Madhusudhan KS et al (2009) Respiratory-triggered versus breath-hold diffusion-weighted MRI of liver lesions: comparison of image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient values. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:915–922CrossRefPubMed
33.
Wang YXJ, Huang H, Zheng CJ et al (2021) Diffusion-weighted MRI of the liver: challenges and some solutions for the quantification of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion. Am J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 11(2):107–142PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Kartalis N, Manikis GC, Loizou L et al (2016) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of pancreatic cancer: a comparison of mono-exponential, bi-exponential and non-Gaussian kurtosis models. Eur J Radiol Open 3:79–85CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Sénégas J, Krueger S, Wirtz D, et al. (2018) Comparison of liver motion measured by dynamic MRI and respiration signals obtained by an optical sensor. In: Proceedings of the 26th annual meeting Intl Soc Mag Reson Med (ISMRM), Paris. p. 2528.
36.
Harder F, Lohöfer FK, Kaissis GA et al (2019) Camera-based respiratory triggering improves the image quality of 3D magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography. Eur J Radiol 120:108675CrossRefPubMed
37.
Metadata
Title
Diffusion weighted imaging combining respiratory triggering and navigator echo tracking in the upper abdomen
Authors
Yoshihiko Tachikawa
Hiroshi Hamano
Naoya Chiwata
Hikaru Yoshikai
Kento Ikeda
Yasunori Maki
Yukihiko Takahashi
Makiko Koike
Publication date
24-02-2024
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine
Print ISSN: 0968-5243
Electronic ISSN: 1352-8661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-024-01150-1