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

期刊

JOURNAL OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING
卷 44, 期 5, 页码 1320-1329

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25277

关键词

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

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据