RESUMO
PURPOSE: To prospectively compare artefacts and image quality in testicular stage I cancer patients using different combinations of breathing schemes and Multi-band (MB) in whole-body DWIBS at 1.5 T.Diffusion-Weighted whole-body Imaging with Background body signal Suppression (DWIBS) using inversion recovery (IR) fat saturation is a cornerstone in oncologic whole-body MRI, but implementation is restrained by long acquisition times. The new Multi-Band (MB) technique reduces scan time which can be reinvested in respiratory compensation. METHODS: Thirty testicular cancer stage I patients were included. Three variations of whole-body DWIBS were tested: Standard free Breathing (FB)-DWIBS, FB-MB-DWIBS and Respiratory triggered (RT)-MB-DWIBS. Artefacts and image quality of b = 800 s/mm2 images were evaluated using a Likert scale. No pathology was revealed. SNR was calculated in a healthy volunteer. RESULTS: RT-MB-DWIBS was rated significantly better than FB-DWIBS in the thorax (p < 0.001) and abdomen (p < 0.001), but not in the pelvis (p = 0.569). FB-MB-DWIBS was ranked significantly lower than both FB-DWIBS (p < 0.001) and RT-MB-DWIBS (p < 0.001) at all locations. However, FB-MB-DWIBS was scanned in half the time without being less than "satisfactory". Few artefacts were encountered. SNR was similar for low-intensity tissues, but the SNR in high-intensity and respiratory-prone tissue (spleen) was slightly lower for FB-DWIBS than the other sequences. CONCLUSION: Images produced by the sequences were similar. MB enables the use of respiratory trigger or can be used to produce very fast free-breathing DWI with acceptable image quality.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare respiratory-triggered (RT) and free breathing (FB) diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) techniques regarding apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements and repeatability in non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) measuring the total tumor volume. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 57 magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examinations were analyzed. DWI was obtained by a single-shot spin-echo echo-planar imaging sequence, and for each MRI examination 2 consecutive RT and 2 consecutive FB DWI sequences were performed. Two radiologists independently read the images and made measurements. For each tumor the mean ADC value of the whole tumor volume was calculated. The difference in mean ADCs between FB and RT DWI was evaluated using the paired-sample t-test. The repeatability of ADC measurements related to imaging method was evaluated by intra class correlations (ICC) for each of the FB and RT DWI pairs. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in mean ADCs between FB and RT (Reader 1 p = 0.346, Reader 2 p = 0.583). The overall repeatability of ADC measurement was good for both acquisition methods, with ICCs > 0.9. Subgroup analysis showed somewhat poorer repeatability in small tumors (50 ml or less) and tumors in the lower lung zones for the RT acquisition, with ICC as low as 0.72. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in ADC measurement or repeatability between FB and RT DWI in whole lesion ADC measurements of adenocarcinomas in the lung was demonstrated. The results imply that in this setting the FB acquisition method is accurate and possibly more robust than the RT acquisition technique.