Magnetic resonance imaging of the pancreas at 3.0 tesla - Qualitative and quantitative comparison with 7.5 tesla

被引:44
作者
Edelman, RR
Salanitri, G
Brand, R
Dunkle, E
Ragin, A
Li, W
Mehta, W
Berlin, J
Newmark, G
Gore, R
Patel, B
Carillo, A
Vu, A
机构
[1] Evanston NW Healthcare, Dept Radiol, Evanston, IL 60201 USA
[2] Evanston NW Healthcare, Dept Med, Evanston, IL 60201 USA
[3] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Evanston, IL USA
[4] GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI USA
关键词
3.0; T; magnetic resonance imaging; pancreas; pulse sequence;
D O I
10.1097/01.rli.0000195880.69880.6c
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Objectives: We sought to perform a preliminary comparison of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and image quality for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the pancreas at 1.5 and 3 T. Materials and Methods: Two imaging cohorts were Studied using a T2-weighted, single-shot fast spin-echo pulse sequence and a T1-weighted, filt-suppressed 3D gradient-echo pulse sequence. In the first cohort, 4 subjects were imaged using identical imaging parameters before and after contrast administration at 1.5 and 3.0 T. The SNR was quantified for the pancreas as well as for the liver, spleen, and muscle. In a second cohort of 12 Subjects in whom the receiver bandwidth was adjusted for field strength, SNR measurements and qualitative rankings of image quality were performed. Results: In the study cohort using identical imaging parameters at both magnetic field strengths, the mean (SID) ratios of SNR at 3.0 to 1.5 T of the single-shot flast spin-echo images for the pancreas, liver, spleen, and muscle were 1.63 (0.39), 1.82 (0.39), 1.45 (0.18), 2.01 (0.16), respectively. For the precontrast fat-suppressed 3D gradient-echo sequence, the corresponding ratios were 1.28 (0.29), 1.26 (0.30), 1.16 (0.27), and 1.76 (0.45), respectively; for the arterial phase, the corresponding ratios were 2.02 (0.28), 1.60 (0.42), 1.47 (0.26), and 1.94 (0.32), respectively; and for the delayed postcontrast phase, the corresponding ratios were 1.63 (0.5 1), 2.01 (0.25), 1.66 (0.06), and 2.31 (0.47), respectively. The SNR benefit of 3.0 T was significantly greater on contrast-enhanced as compared with noncontrast T1-weighted 3D gradient-echo images. In the second Study cohort, SNR was superior at 3.0 T, although the use of a reduced readout bandwidth at 1.5 T substantially diminished the advantage of the higher field system. With qualitative comparison of images obtained at the 2 magnetic field strengths, the fat-suppressed 3D gradient-echo images obtained at 3.0 T were preferred, whereas the single shot fast spin-echo images obtained at 1.5 T were preferred because of better signal homogeneity. Conclusions: Our results ill a small cohort of volunteers and patients demonstrate a marked improvement in SNR at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T (by a factor of 2 in some cases) when identical imaging parameters were used. The SNR advantage at 3.0 T is diminished but persists when the receiver bandwidth is adjusted for magnetic field strength. The results suggest that 3.0 T may offer promise for improved body MRI, although further technical development to optimize SNR and improve signal homogeneity will be needed before its full potential call be achieved.
引用
收藏
页码:175 / 180
页数:6
相关论文
共 17 条
  • [1] High-resolution three-dimensional contrast-enhanced blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance venography of brain tumors at 3 Tesla:: First clinical experience and comparison with 1.5 Tesla
    Barth, M
    Nöbauer-Huhmann, IM
    Reichenbach, JR
    Mlynárik, V
    Schöggl, A
    Matula, C
    Trattnig, S
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2003, 38 (07) : 409 - 414
  • [2] Imaging techniques in the evaluation of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas
    Brand, RE
    Matamoros, A
    [J]. DIGESTIVE DISEASES, 1998, 16 (04) : 242 - 252
  • [3] BUSSE RF, 2003, P INT SOC MAG RESON, V11, P206
  • [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
    Chang, JM
    Lee, JM
    Lee, MW
    Choi, JY
    Kim, SH
    Lee, JY
    Han, JK
    Choi, BI
    [J]. INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2006, 41 (02) : 168 - 174
  • [5] Graf H, 2004, ROFO-FORTSCHR RONTG, V176, P17
  • [6] Greenman R, 2001, P INT SOC MAH RES ME, V9, P1094
  • [7] Prospective evaluation of pancreatic tumors:: Accuracy of MR imaging with MR cholangiopancreatography and MR angiography
    Hänninen, EL
    Amthauer, H
    Hosten, N
    Ricke, J
    Böhmig, M
    Langrehr, J
    Hintze, R
    Neuhaus, P
    Wiedenmann, B
    Rosewicz, S
    Felix, R
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2002, 224 (01) : 34 - 41
  • [8] State-of-the-art imaging of pancreatic neoplasms
    Kalra, MK
    Maher, MM
    Mueller, PR
    Saini, S
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY, 2003, 76 (912) : 857 - 865
  • [9] Technologic advances in abdominal MR imaging
    Keogan, MT
    Edelman, RR
    [J]. RADIOLOGY, 2001, 220 (02) : 310 - 320
  • [10] Lawrence NT., 2005, APPL RADIOL, V34, P8