4.7 Article

Quantitative comparison of MR diffusion-weighted imaging for liver focal lesions between 3.0T and 1.5T: Regions of interest of the minimum-spot ADC, the largest possible solid part, and the maximum diameter in lesions

Journal

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
Volume 44, Issue 5, Pages 1320-1329

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25277

Keywords

liver; diffusion weighted imaging; field strength; apparent diffusion coefficient

Funding

  1. Capital Health Research and Development Special Fund of China [SF 2011-5001-05]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PurposeTo quantitatively compare the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values of 3.0T and 1.5T magnetic resonance (MR) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) protocols using regions of interest (ROIs) for the minimum ADC, largest solid part, and maximum diameter of lesions, for the detection of liver focal lesions. Materials and MethodsIn total, 26 patients with 28 liver focal lesions prospectively underwent both 1.5T and 3.0T DWI of the liver. The protocols included respiratory-triggered (RT), breath-holding (BH), and free-breathing (FB) acquisitions. The ADC values were measured at both field strengths using three methods: ROIs with the minimum ADC, the largest solid part, and the maximum diameter of lesions. Bland-Altman tests and paired t-tests were used to compare ADC values in the liver focal lesions obtained at 1.5T and 3.0T. ResultsThe 3.0T and 1.5T protocols differed significantly with regard to the ADC values of the RT, BH, and FB acquisitions, for ROIs of both the largest solid part (P = 0.005, P = 0.014, and P = 0.022, respectively) and maximum diameter of lesions (P < 0.001, P = 0.001, and P = 0.001, respectively). ConclusionWhen using DWI for quantitative analysis of liver focal lesions, field strength could exert a negative effect depending on the ROI. The ADC values from ROIs of both the largest solid part and maximum diameter of lesions may differ between 1.5T and 3.0T protocols.J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;44:1320-1329.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available