ISSN: 1899-0967
Polish Journal of Radiology
Established by prof. Zygmunt Grudziński in 1926 Sun
Current issue Archive About the journal Editorial board Abstracting and indexing Contact Instructions for authors
SCImago Journal & Country Rank



2018
vol. 83
 
Share:
Share:
more
 
 
abstract:
Original paper

Reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion of liver on a 3.0T scanner: free-breathing and respiratory-triggered sequences acquired with different numbers of excitations

Andrzej Cieszanowski, Katarzyna Pasicz, Joanna Podgórska, Ewa Fabiszewska, Witold Skrzyński, Jakub Jasieniak, Agnieszka Anysz-Grodzicka, Iwona Grabska, Jakub Pałucki, Martyna Naduk-Ostrowska, Beata Jagielska, Paweł Kukołowicz

© Pol J Radiol 2018; 83: e437-e445
Online publish date: 2018/09/17
View full text
Get citation
ENW
EndNote
BIB
JabRef, Mendeley
RIS
Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero
AMA
APA
Chicago
Harvard
MLA
Vancouver
 
Purpose
To optimise the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) imaging of the liver on a 3.0T scanner by assessing parameter reproducibility on free-breathing (FB) and respiratory-triggered (RT) sequences acquired with different numbers of signal averages (NSA).

Material and methods
In this prospective study 20 subjects (M/F: 10/10; age: 25-62 years, mean: 39 years) underwent IVIM magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on a 3.0T scanner using an 18-channel phase-arrayed coil and four different echo-planar sequences, each with 10 β values: 0, 10, 30, 50, 75, 100, 150, 200, 500, and 900 s/mm2. Images were acquired with FB and RT with NSA = 1-4 (FBNSA1-4, RTNSA1-4) and with NSA = 3-6 (FBNSA3-6, RTNSA3-6). Subsequently, for the assessment of reproducibility of IVIM-derived parameters (f, D, D*), each subject was scanned again with an identical protocol during the same session. IVIM parameters were calculated. The distribution of IVIM-parameters for each DWI sequence were given as the median value with first and third quartile. Inter-scan reproducibility for each IVIM parameter was evaluated using coefficient of variance and Bland-Altman difference. Differences between FB sequence and RT sequence were tested using non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results
Mean coefficient of variance (%) for f, D, and D* ranged from 60 to 64, from 58 to 84, and from 82 to 99 for FBNSA1-4 sequence; from 50 to 69, from 41 to 97, and from 80 to 82 for RTNSA1-4 sequence; from 22 to 27, 15, and from 70 to 80 for FBNSA3-6 sequence; and from 21 to 32, from 12 to, and from 50 to 80 for RTNSA3-6 sequence, respectively.

Conclusions
Increasing the number of signal averages for IVIM acquisitions allows us to improve the reproducibility of IVIM-derived parameters. The sequence acquired during free-breathing with NSA = 3-6 was optimal in terms of reproducibility and acquisition time.

keywords:

diffusion-weighted imaging, b-value, pseudo-diffusion, liver, intravoxel incoherent motion

references:
Dyvorne H, Jajamovich G, Kakite S, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion imaging of the liver: Optimal b-value subsampling and impact on parameter precision and reproducibility. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83: 2109-2113.
Patel J, Sigmund EE, Rusinek H, et al. Diagnosis of cirrhosis with intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion MRI and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI alone and in combination: preliminary experience. J Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 31: 589-600.
Yoon JH, Lee JM, Baek JH, et al. Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis using intravoxel incoherent motion in diffusion-weighted liver MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2014; 38: 110-116.
Luciani A, Vignaud A, Cavet M, et al. Liver cirrhosis: intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging – pilot study. Radiology 2008; 249: 891-899.
Guiu B, Petit J-M, Capitan V, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A 3.0-T MR study. Radiology 2012; 265: 96-103.
Cui Y, Dyvorne H, Besa C, et al. IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: Comparison with 1.5 T. Eur J Radiol Open 2015; 2: 123-128.
Lemke A, Stieltjes B, Schad LR, et al. Toward an optimal distribution of β values for intravoxel incoherent motion imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 29: 766-776.
Yamada I, Aung W, Himeno Y, et al. Diffusion coefficients in abdominal organs and hepatic lesions: evaluation with intravoxel incoherent motion echo-planar MR imaging. Radiology 1999; 210: 617-623.
Lemke A, Laun FB, Klauß M, et al. Differentiation of pancreas carcinoma from healthy pancreatic tissue using multiple b-values: Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters. Invest Radiol 2009; 44: 769-775.
Dyvorne HA, Galea N, Nevers T, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver with multiple β values: effect of diffusion gradient polarity and breathing acquisition on image quality and intravoxel incoherent motion parameters – a pilot study. Radiology 2013; 266: 920-929.
Leporq B, Saint-Jalmes H, Rabrait C, et al. Optimization of intra- voxel incoherent motion imaging at 3.0 Tesla for fast liver examination. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 41: 1209-1217.
Le Bihan D, BretonE, Lallemand D, et al. Separation of diffusion and perfusion in intravoxel incoherent motion MR imaging. Radiology 1988; 168: 497-505.
Yoon JH, Lee JM, Yu MH, et al. Evaluation of hepatic focal lesions using diffusion-weighted MR imaging: Comparison of apparent diffusion coefficient and intravoxel incoherent motion-derived parameters. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39: 276-285.
Yoon JH, Lee JM, Baek JH, et al. Evaluation of hepatic fibrosis using intravoxel incoherent motion in diffusion-weighted liver MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 38: 110-116.
Guiu B, Petit J-M, Capitan V, et al. Intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: A 3.0-T MR study. Radiology 2012; 265: 96-103.
Springer F, Martirosian P, Boss A, et al. Current problems and future opportunities of abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at higher field strengths. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2010; 21: 141-148.
Rosenkrantz AB, Oei M, Babb JS, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: Image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 2011; 33: 128-135.
Dale BM, Braithwaite AC, Boll DT, et al. Field strength and diffusion encoding technique affect the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen. Invest Radiol 2010; 45: 104-108.
Barbieri S, Donati OF, Froehlich JM, et al. Comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion parameters across MR imagers and field strengths: evaluation in upper abdominal organs. Radiology 2016; 279: 784-794.
Zhu J, Zhang J, Gao J, et al. Apparent diffusion coefficient normalization of normal liver: Will it improve the reproducibility of diffusion-weighted imaging at different MR scanners as a new biomarker? Medicine (Baltimore) 2017; 96: e5910.
 
Quick links
© 2018 Termedia Sp. z o.o. All rights reserved.
Developed by Bentus.
PayU - płatności internetowe