3.0-T MR Imaging of the Abdomen: Comparison with 1.5 T

被引:170
作者
Chang, Kevin J. [1 ]
Kamel, Ihab R.
Macura, Katarzyna J.
Bluemke, David A.
机构
[1] Rhode Isl Hosp, Dept Diagnost Imaging, Providence, RI 02903 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1148/rg.287075154
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 [临床医学]; 100207 [影像医学与核医学]; 1009 [特种医学];
摘要
Three-tesla magnetic resonance (MR) imaging offers substantially higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) than 1.5-T MR imaging does, which can be used to improve image resolution and shorten imaging time. Because of these increases in SNR and CNR, as well as changes in T1 and T2 relaxation times, an increase in magnetic susceptibility, and an increase in chemical shift effect, many abdominal applications can benefit from 3.0-T imaging. Increased CNR obtained with a gadolinium-based contrast agent improves lesion conspicuity, requires less intravenous contrast material, and improves MR angiography by increasing spatial and temporal resolution. Increased SNR improves fluid conspicuity and resolution for applications such as MR cholangiopancreatography. Increased chemical shift effect also improves spectral resolution for MR spectroscopy. Several potential problems remain for abdominal imaging at 3.0 T. Limitations on energy deposition may require compromises in pulse sequence timing and flip angles. These compromises result in prolonged imaging time and altered image contrast. Magnetic susceptibility and chemical shift artifacts are worsened, but they may be counteracted by shortening echo time, performing parallel imaging, and increasing bandwidth. Radiofrequency field inhomogeneity is also a major concern in imaging larger fields of view and often leads to standing wave effects and large local variations in signal intensity. Many issues related to MR device compatibility and safety have yet to be addressed at 3.0 T. A 3.0-T MR imaging system has a higher initial cost and a higher cost of upkeep than a 1.5-T system does.
引用
收藏
页码:1983 / 1998
页数:16
相关论文
共 56 条
[1]
Single-voxel proton MRS of the human brain at 1.5T and 3.0T [J].
Barker, PB ;
Hearshen, DO ;
Boska, MD .
MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN MEDICINE, 2001, 45 (05) :765-769
[2]
Body MR Imaging at 3.0 T: Understanding the opportunities and challenges [J].
Barth, Mara M. ;
Smith, Martin P. ;
Pedrosa, Ivan ;
Lenkinski, Robert E. ;
Rofsky, Neil M. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2007, 27 (05) :1445-1462
[3]
BUSHBERG JT, 2002, ESSENTIAL PHYS MED I, pR16
[4]
Superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging - Comparison of 1.5 T and 3.0 T imaging for detection of focal malignant liver lesions [J].
Chang, JM ;
Lee, JM ;
Lee, MW ;
Choi, JY ;
Kim, SH ;
Lee, JY ;
Han, JK ;
Choi, BI .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (02) :168-174
[5]
Single breath-hold diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen [J].
Chow, LC ;
Bammer, R ;
Moseley, ME ;
Sommer, FG .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2003, 18 (03) :377-382
[6]
Central brightening due to constructive interference with, without, and despite dielectric resonance [J].
Collins, CM ;
Liu, WZ ;
Schreiber, W ;
Yang, QX ;
Smith, MB .
JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2005, 21 (02) :192-196
[7]
MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: Preliminary results [J].
de Bazelaire, CMJ ;
Duhamel, GD ;
Rofsky, NM ;
Alsop, DC .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 230 (03) :652-659
[8]
How much contrast is enough? Dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence [J].
Elster, AD .
EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY, 1997, 7 (Suppl 5) :S276-S280
[9]
Fukatsu Hiroshi, 2003, Magn Reson Med Sci, V2, P37, DOI 10.2463/mrms.2.37
[10]
FULLERTON GD, 1992, MAGNETIC RESONANCE I, P88