Impact of velocity- and acceleration-compensated encodings on signal dropout and black-blood state in diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance liver imaging at clinical TEs

PURPOSE: The study aims to develop easy-to-implement concomitant field-compensated gradient waveforms with varying velocity-weighting (M(1)) and acceleration-weighting (M(2)) levels and to evaluate their efficacy in correcting signal dropouts and preserving the black-blood state in liver diffusion-weighted imaging. Additionally, we seek to determine an optimal degree of compensation that minimizes signal dropouts while maintaining blood signal suppression. METHODS: Numerically optimized gradient waveforms were adapted using a novel method that allows for the simultaneous tuning of M(1)- and M(2)-weighting by changing only one timing variable. Seven healthy volunteers underwent diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) with five diffusion encoding schemes (monopolar, velocity-compensated (M(1) = 0), acceleration-compensated (M(1) = M(2) = 0), 84%-M(1)–M(2)-compensated, 67%-M(1)–M(2)-compensated) at b-values of 50 and 800 s/mm(2) at a constant echo time of 70 ms. Signal dropout correction and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) were quantified using regions of interest in the left and right liver lobe. The blood appearance was evaluated using two five-point Likert scales. RESULTS: Signal dropout was more pronounced in the left lobe (19%-42% less signal than in the right lobe with monopolar scheme) and best corrected by acceleration-compensation (8%-10% less signal than in the right lobe). The black-blood state was best with monopolar encodings and decreased significantly (p < 0.001) with velocity- and/or acceleration-compensation. The partially M(1)–M(2)-compensated encoding schemes could restore the black-blood state again. Strongest ADC bias occurred for monopolar encodings (difference between left/right lobe of 0.41 μm(2)/ms for monopolar vs. < 0.12 μm(2)/ms for the other encodings). CONCLUSION: All of the diffusion encodings used in this study demonstrated suitability for routine DWI application. The results indicate that a perfect value for the level of M(1)–M(2)-compensation does not exist. However, among the examined encodings, the 84%-M(1)–M(2)-compensated encodings provided a suitable tradeoff.