Reproducibility of intravoxel incoherent motion of liver on a 3.0T scanner: free-breathing and respiratory-triggered sequences acquired with different numbers of excitations
More details
Hide details
Submission date: 2018-05-28
Acceptance date: 2018-05-29
Publication date: 2018-09-17
Pol J Radiol, 2018; 83: 437-445
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.

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.

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.

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.
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.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top