+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla

Image artifacts on prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging: trade-offs at 1.5 Tesla and 3.0 Tesla

Academic Radiology 20(8): 1041-1047

To identify the presence and extent of artifacts in prostate diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DW-MRI) and discuss tradeoffs between imaging at 1.5 T (1.5 T) and 3.0 T (3.0 T). In addition, we aim to provide quantitative estimates of signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) at both field strengths. The institutional review board waived informed consent for this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant, retrospective study of 53 consecutive men who underwent 3.0 T endorectal DW-MRI and 53 consecutive men who underwent 1.5 T endorectal DW-MRI between October and December 2010. One radiologist and one physicist, blinded to patient characteristics, image acquisition parameters, and field strength, scored DW-MRI artifacts. On b = 0 images, SNR was measured as the ratio of the mean signal from a region of interest (ROI) at the level of the verumontanum (the reference region ) to the standard deviation from the mean signal in an artifact-free ROI in the rectum. Both readers found geometric distortion and signal graininess significantly more often at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (P < .0001, all comparisons). Reader 2 (but not reader 1) found ghosting artifacts more often at 3.0 T (P = .001) and blurring more often at 1.5 T (P = .006). Mean SNR at the urethra (87.92 27.76) at 3.0 T was 1.43 times higher than at 1.5 T (64.51 14.96) (P < .0001). At 3.0 T (as compared to 1.5 T), increased SNR on prostate DW-MRI comes at the expense of geometric distortion and can also lead to more pronounced ghosting artifacts. Therefore, to take full advantage of the benefits of 3.0 T, further improvements in acquisition techniques are needed to address DW-MRI artifacts corresponding to higher field strengths.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 036964891

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 23830610

DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2013.04.005

Related references

Reduced Field-of-View Diffusion-Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Prostate at 3 Tesla: Comparison With Standard Echo-Planar Imaging Technique for Image Quality and Tumor Assessment. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 41(6): 949-956, 2017

Image distortion and artifacts caused by the use of a titanium aneurism clip in 1.5 tesla- and 3 tesla-magnetic resonance imaging: effect on 60cobalt stereotactic radiosurgery treatment planning. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 70(6): 534-541, 2014

The clinical value of 3 tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of prostate cancer. Hinyokika Kiyo. Acta Urologica Japonica 58(3): 143-148, 2012

Image quality and cancer visibility of T2-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 7 Tesla. European Radiology 24(8): 1950-1958, 2015

Feasibility of in vivo quantitative magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion weighted imaging, T2-weighted relaxometry, and diffusion tensor imaging in a clinical 3 tesla magnetic resonance scanner for the acute traumatic spinal cord injury of rats: technical note. Spine 38(20): E1242-9, 2014

Optimal imaging parameters and the advantage of cerebrospinal fluid flow image using time-spatial labeling inversion pulse at 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging: comparison of image quality for 1.5 tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 70(12): 1439-1444, 2015

Optimal Imaging Parameters and the Advantage of Renal Artery Image Using Time-spatial Labeling Inversion Pulse at 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison of Image Quality for 1.5 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Nihon Hoshasen Gijutsu Gakkai Zasshi 72(11): 1113-1121, 2017

Interobserver variability of 3.0-tesla and 1.5-tesla magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography fusion image-based post-implant dosimetry of prostate brachytherapy. Journal of Radiation Research 2019, 2019

Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3.0 Tesla: image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility compared with 1.5 Tesla. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging 33(1): 128-135, 2011

Effect of intravenous gadolinium-DTPA on diffusion-weighted imaging for prostate lesions and normal tissue at 3.0-Tesla magnetic resonance imaging. Acta Radiologica 52(5): 575-580, 2011

The role of 3-tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in selecting prostate cancer patients for active surveillance. Prostate International 2(4): 169-175, 2015

High b value (2,000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in prostate cancer at 3 Tesla: comparison with 1,000 s/mm2 for tumor conspicuity and discrimination of aggressiveness. Plos One 9(5): E96619, 2015

3-Tesla versus 1.5-Tesla magnetic resonance diffusion and perfusion imaging in hyperacute ischemic stroke. Cerebrovascular Diseases 24(4): 361-368, 2007

Feasibility of 7 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging determination of intrinsic sensitivity and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and (1)H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Investigative Radiology 46(6): 370-376, 2011

Three-Tesla magnetic resonance elastography for hepatic fibrosis: comparison with diffusion-weighted imaging and gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. World Journal of Gastroenterology 20(46): 17558-17567, 2015