Suppr超能文献

不同扫描仪上多种扩散加权磁共振成像技术的效率与准确性评估

Efficiency and Accuracy Evaluation of Multiple Diffusion-Weighted MRI Techniques Across Different Scanners.

作者信息

Crop Frederik, Robert Clémence, Viard Romain, Dumont Julien, Kawalko Marine, Makala Pauline, Liem Xavier, El Aoud Imen, Ben Miled Aicha, Chaton Victor, Patin Lucas, Pasquier David, Guillaud Ophélie, Vandendorpe Benjamin, Mirabel Xavier, Ceugnart Luc, Decoene Camille, Lacornerie Thomas

机构信息

Department of Medical Physics, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France.

University of Lille, IEMN, Lille, France.

出版信息

J Magn Reson Imaging. 2024 Jan;59(1):311-322. doi: 10.1002/jmri.28869. Epub 2023 Jun 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The choice between different diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) techniques is difficult as each comes with tradeoffs for efficient clinical routine imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) accuracy.

PURPOSE

To quantify signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) efficiency, ADC accuracy, artifacts, and distortions for different DWI acquisition techniques, coils, and scanners.

STUDY TYPE

Phantom, in vivo intraindividual biomarker accuracy between DWI techniques and independent ratings.

POPULATION/PHANTOMS: NIST diffusion phantom. 51 Patients: 40 with prostate cancer and 11 with head-and-neck cancer at 1.5 T FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Echo planar imaging (EPI): 1.5 T and 3 T Siemens; 3 T Philips. Distortion-reducing: RESOLVE (1.5 and 3 T Siemens); Turbo Spin Echo (TSE)-SPLICE (3 T Philips). Small field-of-view (FOV): ZoomitPro (1.5 T Siemens); IRIS (3 T Philips). Head-and-neck and flexible coils.

ASSESSMENT

SNR Efficiency, geometrical distortions, and susceptibility artifacts were quantified for different b-values in a phantom. ADC accuracy/agreement was quantified in phantom and for 51 patients. In vivo image quality was independently rated by four experts.

STATISTICAL TESTS

QIBA methodology for accuracy: trueness, repeatability, reproducibility, Bland-Altman 95% Limits-of-Agreement (LOA) for ADC. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank and student tests on P < 0.05 level.

RESULTS

The ZoomitPro small FOV sequence improved b-image efficiency by 8%-14%, reduced artifacts and observer scoring for most raters at the cost of smaller FOV compared to EPI. The TSE-SPLICE technique reduced artifacts almost completely at a 24% efficiency cost compared to EPI for b-values ≤500 sec/mm . Phantom ADC 95% LOA trueness were within ±0.03 × 10  mm /sec except for small FOV IRIS. The in vivo ADC agreement between techniques, however, resulted in 95% LOAs in the order of ±0.3 × 10  mm /sec with up to 0.2 × 10  mm /sec of bias.

DATA CONCLUSION

ZoomitPro for Siemens and TSE SPLICE for Philips resulted in a trade-off between efficiency and artifacts. Phantom ADC quality control largely underestimated in vivo accuracy: significant ADC bias and variability was found between techniques in vivo.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

摘要

背景

不同的扩散加权成像(DWI)技术之间的选择颇具难度,因为每种技术在高效临床常规成像和表观扩散系数(ADC)准确性方面都存在权衡。

目的

量化不同DWI采集技术、线圈和扫描仪的信噪比(SNR)效率、ADC准确性、伪影和畸变。

研究类型

体模研究、不同DWI技术间的体内个体生物标志物准确性及独立评级。

研究对象/体模:美国国家标准与技术研究院(NIST)扩散体模。51例患者:40例前列腺癌患者和11例头颈癌患者,磁场强度为1.5T。

场强/序列:回波平面成像(EPI):1.5T和3T西门子;3T飞利浦。减少畸变:RESOLVE(1.5T和3T西门子);快速自旋回波(TSE)-拼接(3T飞利浦)。小视野(FOV):ZoomitPro(1.5T西门子);IRIS(3T飞利浦)。头颈线圈和柔性线圈。

评估

在体模中针对不同b值量化SNR效率、几何畸变和磁化率伪影。在体模和51例患者中量化ADC准确性/一致性。由四位专家对体内图像质量进行独立评级。

统计检验

采用质量保证与改进学会(QIBA)方法评估准确性:真实性、可重复性、再现性,ADC的布兰德-奥特曼95%一致性界限(LOA)。采用Wilcoxon符号秩检验和学生检验,P值<0.05为有统计学意义。

结果

与EPI相比,ZoomitPro小视野序列将b图像效率提高了8%-14%,减少了伪影,多数评级者的评分降低,但代价是视野较小。对于b值≤500sec/mm²,与EPI相比,TSE-拼接技术几乎完全消除了伪影,但效率降低了24%。除小视野IRIS外,体模ADC的95%LOA真实性在±0.03×10⁻³mm²/sec范围内。然而,不同技术间的体内ADC一致性导致95%LOA约为±0.3×10⁻³mm²/sec,偏差高达0.2×10⁻³mm²/sec。

数据结论

西门子的ZoomitPro和飞利浦的TSE-拼接技术在效率和伪影之间进行了权衡。体模ADC质量控制在很大程度上低估了体内准确性:在体内不同技术间发现了显著的ADC偏差和变异性。

证据水平

3级。

技术效能阶段

2级。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验