Quality assurance for diffusion tensor imaging using an ACR phantom: Comparative analysis with 6, 15, and 32 directions at 1.5T and 3.0T MRI systems

被引:0
|
作者
Jung-Hoon Lee
Sang-Young Kim
Do-Wan Lee
Jin-Young Jung
Kyu-Ho Song
Bo-Young Choe
机构
[1] College of Medicine,Department of Biomedical Engineering, Research Institute of Biomedical Engineering
[2] The Catholic University of Korea,Department of Radiology
[3] Kyunghee Medical Center,undefined
来源
关键词
Magnetic resonance imaging; Diffusion tensor imaging; ACR MRI phantom;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Although diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) has been widely used for the quantitative analyses of the integrity of white matter in the brain in clinical and research fields, quality assurance (QA) for DTI has not been fully established. Thus, we suggest a QA guideline for DTI using the American College of Radiology (ACR) Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) head phantom. In this study, the geometric accuracy, slice-position accuracy, image intensity uniformity, percent signalghosting, low-contrast object detectability, image distortion, fractional anisotropy (FA), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) were measured and evaluated in 1.5T and 3.0T MRI scanners equipped with an 8-channel SENSE head coil. The standard axial spin echo (SE) T1-weighted MR images and DTI with 6, 15 and 32 directions were obtained. Concerning geometric accuracy, image twisting in the three directions was observed due to the inhomogeneity of echo planar imaging (EPI). Image intensity uniformity was significantly lower for DTI than for the standard SE T1-weighted MR images. Percent signal ghosting was higher for images from 3.0T MRI than for images from 1.5T MRI. Low-contrast object detectability was visually identified and measured at a low contrasttonoise ratio (CNR) and a low signaltonoise ratio (SNR). Image distortion changed remarkably to the phaseencoding direction. The present study using the ACR MRI phantom suggests a QA method for DTI with high reproducibility and easy accessibility.
引用
收藏
页码:103 / 110
页数:7
相关论文
共 38 条
  • [1] Quality assurance for diffusion tensor imaging using an ACR phantom: Comparative analysis with 6, 15, and 32 directions at 1.5T and 3.0T MRI systems
    Lee, Jung-Hoon
    Kim, Sang-Young
    Lee, Do-Wan
    Jung, Jin-Young
    Song, Kyu-Ho
    Choe, Bo-Young
    JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY, 2014, 65 (01) : 103 - 110
  • [2] Whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for staging lymphoma at 3.0T: comparative study with MR imaging at 1.5T
    Azzedine, Benaissa
    Kahina, Moussa-Bouharati
    Dimitri, Papathanassiou
    Christophe, Portefaix
    Alain, Delmer
    Claude, Marcus
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2015, 39 (01) : 104 - 109
  • [3] Conduction cooled magnet design for 1.5T, 3.0T and 7.0T MRI systems
    Baig, Tanvir
    Yao, Zhen
    Doll, David
    Tomsic, Michael
    Martens, Michael
    SUPERCONDUCTOR SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, 2014, 27 (12):
  • [4] Evaluation of the ACR MRI phantom for quality assurance tests of 1.5 T MRI scanners in Estonian hospitals
    Kaljuste, Doris
    Nigul, Mait
    PROCEEDINGS OF THE ESTONIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, 2014, 63 (03) : 240 - 246
  • [5] Analysis of ulcerative colitis with 3.0T MRI diffusion weighted imaging
    Zhao, Xin
    Sun, Haoran
    Cao, Xiaocang
    JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2013, 28 : 592 - 593
  • [6] Fetal blood flow measured using phase contrast MRI-comparison of image quality and flow volume at 1.5T with 3.0T
    Beverly Tsai-Goodman
    Mike Seed
    Christopher Macgowan
    Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance, 17 (Suppl 1)
  • [7] Detection of parametrial invasion in women with uterine cervical cancer using diffusion tensor imaging at 1.5T MRI
    Di Paola, Valerio
    Perillo, Federica
    Gui, Benedetta
    Russo, Luca
    Pierconti, Francesco
    Fiorentino, Vincenzo
    Autorino, Rosa
    Ferrandina, Gabriella
    Valentini, Vincenzo
    Scambia, Giovanni
    Manfredi, Riccardo
    DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL IMAGING, 2022, 103 (10) : 472 - 478
  • [8] MR imaging of the fetal brain at 1.5T and 3.0T field strengths: comparing specific absorption rate (SAR) and image quality
    Krishnamurthy, Uday
    Neelavalli, Jaladhar
    Mody, Swati
    Yeo, Lami
    Jella, Pavan K.
    Saleem, Sheena
    Korzeniewski, Steven J.
    Cabrera, Maria D.
    Ehterami, Shadi
    Bahado-Singh, Ray O.
    Katkuri, Yashwanth
    Haacke, Ewart M.
    Hernandez-Andrade, Edgar
    Hassan, Sonia S.
    Romero, Roberto
    JOURNAL OF PERINATAL MEDICINE, 2015, 43 (02) : 209 - 220
  • [9] MEASURING SUBCLINICAL INFLAMMATION IN HAND AND FOREFOOT IN PATIENTS WITH ARTHRALGIA USING 1.5T OR 3.0T MRI: DOES FIELD STRENGTH MATTER?
    Krijbolder, D.
    Verstappen, M.
    Wouters, F.
    Lard, L. R.
    De Buck, P. D.
    Veris-van Dieren, J.
    Reijnierse, M.
    Bloem, H.
    Van der Helm-van Mil, A.
    ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 2021, 80 : 978 - 978
  • [10] Pathological Alterations and Stress Responses near DBS Electrodes after MRI Scans at 7.0T, 3.0T and 1.5T: An In Vivo Comparative Study
    Shi, Lin
    Yang, An-Chao
    Meng, Da-Wei
    Li, Shao-Wu
    Liu, Huan-Guang
    Li, Jun-Ju
    Wang, Xiu
    Zhang, Xin
    Zhang, Jian-Guo
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (07):