Top

European Radiology

Published in:

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

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.

Stejskal EO, Tanner JE (1965) Spin diffusion measurements: spin echoes in the presence of time-dependent field gradient. J Chem Phys 42:288–292CrossRef

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

Koch M, Norris DG (2000) An assessment of eddy current sensitivity and correction in single-shot diffusion-weighted imaging. Phys Med Biol 45:3821–3832. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/45/12/322 CrossRefPubMed

Le Bihan D, Poupon C, Amadon A, Lethimonnier F (2006) Artifacts and pitfalls in diffusion MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:478–488. doi:10.1002/jmri.20683 CrossRefPubMed

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

Kartalis N, Lindholm TL, Aspelin P, Permert J, Albiin N (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of pancreas tumours. Eur Radiol 19:1981–1990. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1384-8 CrossRefPubMed

Sugita R, Yamazaki T, Furuta A, Itoh K, Fujita N, Takahashi S (2009) High b-value diffusion-weighted MRI for detecting gallbladder carcinoma: preliminary study and results. Eur Radiol 19:1794–1798. doi:10.1007/s00330-009-1322-9 CrossRefPubMed

Koh DM, Scurr E, Collins D et al (2007) Predicting response of colorectal hepatic metastasis: value of pretreatment apparent diffusion coefficients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:1001–1008. doi:10.2214/AJR.06.0601 CrossRefPubMed

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.

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.

Reese TG, Heid O, Weisskoff RM, Wedeen VJ (2003) Reduction of eddy-current-induced distortion in diffusion MRI using a twice-refocused spin echo. Magn Reson Med 49:177–182. doi:10.1002/mrm.10308 CrossRefPubMed

12.

Steidle G, Schick P (2006) Echoplanar diffusion tensor imaging of the lower leg musculature using eddy current nulled stimulated echo preparation. Magn Reson Med 55:541–548. doi:10.1002/mrm.20780 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Finsterbusch J (2009) Eddy-current compensated diffusion weighting with a single refocusing RF pulse. Magn Reson Med 61:748–754. doi:10.1002/mrm.21899 CrossRefPubMed

14.

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

15.

Delakis I, Petala K, De Wilde JP (2005) MRI receiver frequency response as a contributor to Nyquist ghosting in echo planar imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 22:324–328. doi:10.1002/jmri.20365 CrossRefPubMed

16.

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.

Buonocore MH, Gao L (1997) Ghost artifact reduction for echo planar imaging using image phase correction. Magn Reson Med 38:89–100CrossRefPubMed

18.

Yoshikawa T, Kawamitsu H, Mitchell DG et al (2006) ADC measurement of abdominal organs and lesions using parallel imaging technique. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:1521–1530. doi:10.2214/AJR.05.0778 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Braithwaite AC, Dale BM, Boll DT, Merkle EM (2009) Short- and midterm reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements at 3.0-T diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Radiology 250:459–465. doi:10.1148/radiol.2502080849 CrossRefPubMed

20.

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.

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. Invest Radiol 45:104–108. doi:10.1097/RLI.0b013e3181c8ceac CrossRefPubMed

22.

Heverhagen JT (2007) Noise measurement and estimation in MR imaging experiments. Radiology 245:638–639. doi:10.1148/radiol.2453062151 CrossRefPubMed

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

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

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

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2010

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the staging of acute pancreatitis

The sentence verification task: a reliable fMRI protocol for mapping receptive language in individual subjects

Outcomes of follow-up CT for small (5–10-mm) arterially enhancing nodules in the liver and risk factors for developing hepatocellular carcinoma in a surveillance population

Size, shape and age-related changes of the mandibular condyle during childhood

Does digital mammography in a decentralized breast cancer screening program lead to screening performance parameters comparable with film-screen mammography?

Comparison of F-18 FET-PET with F-18 FDG-PET for biopsy planning of non-contrast-enhancing gliomas