High Acceleration Three-Dimensional T1-Weighted Dual Echo Dixon Hepatobiliary Phase Imaging Using Compressed Sensing-Sensitivity Encoding: Comparison of Image Quality and Solid Lesion Detectability with the Standard T1-Weighted Sequence

OBJECTIVE: To compare a high acceleration three-dimensional (3D) T1-weighted gradient-recalled-echo (GRE) sequence using the combined compressed sensing (CS)-sensitivity encoding (SENSE) method with a conventional 3D GRE sequence using SENSE, with respect to image quality and detectability of solid focal liver lesions (FLLs) in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 217 patients with gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI at 3T (54 in the preliminary study and 163 in the main study) were retrospectively included. In the main study, HBP imaging was done twice using the standard mDixon-3D-GRE technique with SENSE (acceleration factor [AF]: 2.8, standard mDixon-GRE) and the high acceleration mDixon-3D GRE technique using the combined CS-SENSE technique (CS-SENSE mDixon-GRE). Two abdominal radiologists assessed the two MRI data sets for image quality in consensus. Three other abdominal radiologists independently assessed the diagnostic performance of each data set and its ability to detect solid FLLs in 117 patients with 193 solid nodules and compared them using jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristics (JAFROC). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the overall image quality. CS-SENSE mDixon-GRE showed higher image noise, but lesser motion artifact levels compared with the standard mDixon-GRE (all p < 0.05). In terms of lesion detection, reader-averaged figures-of-merit estimated with JAFROC was 0.918 for standard mDixon-GRE, and 0.953 for CS-SENSE mDixon-GRE (p = 0.142). The non-inferiority of CS-SENSE mDixon-GRE over standard mDixon-GRE was confirmed (difference: 0.064 [−0.012, 0.081]). CONCLUSION: The CS-SENSE mDixon-GRE HBP sequence provided comparable overall image quality and non-inferior solid FFL detectability compared with the standard mDixon-GRE sequence, with reduced acquisition time.

The Effects of Breathing Motion on DCE-MRI Images: Phantom Studies Simulating Respiratory Motion to Compare CAIPIRINHA-VIBE, Radial-VIBE, and Conventional VIBE

OBJECTIVE: To compare the breathing effects on dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI between controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration (CAIPIRINHA)-volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE), radial VIBE with k-space-weighted image contrast view-sharing (radial-VIBE), and conventional VIBE (c-VIBE) sequences using a dedicated phantom experiment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a moving platform to simulate breathing motion. We conducted dynamic scanning on a 3T machine (MAGNETOM Skyra, Siemens Healthcare) using CAIPIRINHA-VIBE, radial-VIBE, and c-VIBE for six minutes per sequence. We acquired MRI images of the phantom in both static and moving modes, and we also obtained motion-corrected images for the motion mode. We compared the signal stability and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of each sequence according to motion state and used the coefficients of variation (CoV) to determine the degree of signal stability. RESULTS: With motion, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE showed the best image quality, and the motion correction aligned the images very well. The CoV (%) of CAIPIRINHA-VIBE in the moving mode (18.65) decreased significantly after the motion correction (2.56) (p < 0.001). In contrast, c-VIBE showed severe breathing motion artifacts that did not improve after motion correction. For radial-VIBE, the position of the phantom in the images did not change during motion, but streak artifacts significantly degraded image quality, also after motion correction. In addition, SNR increased in both CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (from 3.37 to 9.41, p < 0.001) and radial-VIBE (from 4.3 to 4.96, p < 0.001) after motion correction. CONCLUSION: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE performed best for free-breathing DCE-MRI after motion correction, with excellent image quality.

Effectiveness of 32-element Surface Coil Array for Accelerated Volume-Targeted Breath-Hold Coronary MRA

PURPOSE: To compare 12 and 32-element surface coil arrays for highly accelerated coronary magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) using parallel imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Steady state free precession coronary MRA was performed in 5 healthy volunteers at 1.5 T whole body MR scanner using both 12 and 32-element surface coil arrays. Left anterior descending and right coronary artery data sets were acquired for each volunteer. Data sets were sub-sampled for parallel imaging using reduction factors from 1 to 6. Mean geometry factor (g-factor), maximum g-factor, and artifact level were calculated for each of the two coil arrays. RESULTS: Over all reduction factors, the mean and maximum g-factors and artifact level were significantly reduced using the 32-element array compared to the 12-element array (P << 0.1). The mean g-factor was sensitive to the imaging orientations of coronary arteries while the maximum g-factor and artifact level were independent of orientation. CONCLUSION: The 32-element surface coil array significantly improves artifact and noise suppression for highly accelerated coronary MRA using parallel imaging. The increased acceleration factors made feasible with the 32-element array offer the potential to enhance spatial resolution or increase volumetric coverage for 3D coronary MRA.

Phased array coil and parallel imaging technology of MRI / 医疗卫生装备

The parallel imaging technology of MRI is the latest technique emerging in the last few years, which is based on the phased array coil. SMASH procedure operates by simultaneously acquiring linear combination signals with different spatial sensitivities from the phased array coils to reduce the phase encoding and shorten the imaging time. SENSE procedure operates by increasing the pace when sampling is performed in k-space, which proves a speedup by reducing the number of encoding steps. When the phased array coil designed, such problems have to be taken into account as resonant frequency, impedance match, mutual impedance and et al.