Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 10/2010

01-10-2010 | Magnetic Resonance

Optimising diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: comparison of image quality between monopolar and bipolar single-shot spin-echo echo-planar sequences

Authors: Stavroula Kyriazi, Matthew Blackledge, David J. Collins, Nandita M. deSouza

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 10/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Objective

To compare geometric distortion, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), efficacy of fat suppression and presence of artefact between monopolar (Stejskal and Tanner) and bipolar (twice-refocused, eddy-current-compensating) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) sequences in the abdomen and pelvis.

Materials and methods

A semiquantitative distortion index (DI) was derived from the subtraction images with b = 0 and 1,000 s/mm2 in a phantom and compared between the two sequences. Seven subjects were imaged with both sequences using four b values (0, 600, 900 and 1,050 s/mm2) and SNR, ADC for different organs and fat-to-muscle signal ratio (FMR) were compared. Image quality was evaluated by two radiologists on a 5-point scale.

Results

DI was improved in the bipolar sequence, indicating less geometric distortion. SNR was significantly lower for all tissues and b values in the bipolar images compared with the monopolar (p < 0.05), whereas FMR was not statistically different. ADC in liver, kidney and sacrum was higher in the bipolar scheme compared to the monopolar (p < 0.03), whereas in muscle it was lower (p = 0.018). Image quality scores were higher for the bipolar sequence (p ≤ 0.025).

Conclusion

Artefact reduction makes the bipolar DWI sequence preferable in abdominopelvic applications, although the trade-off in SNR may compromise ADC measurements in muscle.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Stejskal EO, Tanner JE (1965) Spin diffusion measurements: spin echoes in the presence of time-dependent field gradient. J Chem Phys 42:288–292CrossRef Stejskal EO, Tanner JE (1965) Spin diffusion measurements: spin echoes in the presence of time-dependent field gradient. J Chem Phys 42:288–292CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Jezzard P, Barnett AS, Pierpaoli C (1998) Characterization of and correction for eddy current artifacts in echo planar diffusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 39:801–821CrossRefPubMed Jezzard P, Barnett AS, Pierpaoli C (1998) Characterization of and correction for eddy current artifacts in echo planar diffusion imaging. Magn Reson Med 39:801–821CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Bodammer N, Kaufmann J, Kanowski M, Tempelmann C (2003) Eddy current correction in diffusion-weighted imaging using pairs of images acquired with opposite diffusion gradient polarity. Magn Reson Med 51:188–193. doi:10.1002/mrm.10690 CrossRef Bodammer N, Kaufmann J, Kanowski M, Tempelmann C (2003) Eddy current correction in diffusion-weighted imaging using pairs of images acquired with opposite diffusion gradient polarity. Magn Reson Med 51:188–193. doi:10.​1002/​mrm.​10690 CrossRef
7.
8.
9.
go back to reference Vandecaveye V, Dirix P, De Keyzer F et al (2010) Predictive value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1734-6 Vandecaveye V, Dirix P, De Keyzer F et al (2010) Predictive value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging during chemoradiotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-010-1734-6
10.
go back to reference Alexander AL, Tsuruda JS, Parker DL (1997) Elimination of eddy current artifacts in diffusion-weighted echo-planar images: the use of bipolar gradients. Magn Reson Med 38:1016–1021CrossRefPubMed Alexander AL, Tsuruda JS, Parker DL (1997) Elimination of eddy current artifacts in diffusion-weighted echo-planar images: the use of bipolar gradients. Magn Reson Med 38:1016–1021CrossRefPubMed
11.
12.
14.
go back to reference Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125. doi:10.1593/neo.81328 PubMed Padhani AR, Liu G, Koh DM et al (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging as a cancer biomarker: consensus and recommendations. Neoplasia 11:102–125. doi:10.​1593/​neo.​81328 PubMed
16.
go back to reference Jahng G, Weiner MW, Schuff N (2008) Diffusion anisotropy indexes are sensitive to selecting the EPI readout-encoding bandwidth at high-field MRI. Magn Reson Med 26:676–682. doi:10.1016/j.mri.2008.01.005 Jahng G, Weiner MW, Schuff N (2008) Diffusion anisotropy indexes are sensitive to selecting the EPI readout-encoding bandwidth at high-field MRI. Magn Reson Med 26:676–682. doi:10.​1016/​j.​mri.​2008.​01.​005
17.
go back to reference Buonocore MH, Gao L (1997) Ghost artifact reduction for echo planar imaging using image phase correction. Magn Reson Med 38:89–100CrossRefPubMed Buonocore MH, Gao L (1997) Ghost artifact reduction for echo planar imaging using image phase correction. Magn Reson Med 38:89–100CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference 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 192:915–922. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1260 CrossRefPubMed 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 192:915–922. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​08.​1260 CrossRefPubMed
21.
Metadata
Title
Optimising diffusion-weighted imaging in the abdomen and pelvis: comparison of image quality between monopolar and bipolar single-shot spin-echo echo-planar sequences
Authors
Stavroula Kyriazi
Matthew Blackledge
David J. Collins
Nandita M. deSouza
Publication date
01-10-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 10/2010
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1826-3

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

European Radiology 10/2010 Go to the issue