Cargando…
Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis
OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare the image quality between single-shot echo-planar (SS-EPI) and multi-shot echo-planar (IMS-EPI) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in female pelvis METHODS: This was a prospective study involving 80 females who underwent 3.0T pelvic magnetic reso...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7062860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31822971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06491-3 |
_version_ | 1783504595708805120 |
---|---|
author | An, He Ma, Xiaodong Pan, Ziyi Guo, Hua Lee, Elaine Yuen Phin |
author_facet | An, He Ma, Xiaodong Pan, Ziyi Guo, Hua Lee, Elaine Yuen Phin |
author_sort | An, He |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare the image quality between single-shot echo-planar (SS-EPI) and multi-shot echo-planar (IMS-EPI) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in female pelvis METHODS: This was a prospective study involving 80 females who underwent 3.0T pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). SS-EPI and IMS-EPI DWI were acquired with 3 b values (0, 400, 800 s/mm(2)). Two independent reviewers assessed the overall image quality, artifacts, sharpness, and lesion conspicuity based on a 5-point Likert scale. Regions of interest (ROI) were placed on the endometrium and the gluteus muscles to quantify the signal intensities and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and geometric distortion were quantified on both sequences. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using κ statistics and Kendall test. Qualitative scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and quantitative parameters were compared with paired t test and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: IMS-EPI demonstrated better image quality than SS-EPI for all aspects evaluated (SS-EPI vs. IMS-EPI: overall quality 3.04 vs. 4.17, artifacts 3.09 vs. 3.99, sharpness 2.40 vs. 4.32, lesion conspicuity 3.20 vs. 4.25; p < 0.001). Good agreement and correlation were observed between two reviewers (SS-EPI κ 0.699, r 0.742; IMS-EPI κ 0.702, r 0.789). IMS-EPI showed lower geometric distortion, SNR, and CNR than SS-EPI (p < 0.050). There was no significant difference in the mean ADC between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: IMS-EPI showed better image quality with lower geometric distortion without affecting the quantification of ADC, though the SNR and CNR decreased due to post-processing limitations. KEY POINTS: • IMS-EPI showed better image quality than SS-EPI. • IMS-EPI showed lower geometric distortion without affecting ADC compared with SS-EPI. • The SNR and CNR of IMS-EPI decreased due to post-processing limitations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7062860 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70628602020-03-23 Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis An, He Ma, Xiaodong Pan, Ziyi Guo, Hua Lee, Elaine Yuen Phin Eur Radiol Magnetic Resonance OBJECTIVES: To qualitatively and quantitatively compare the image quality between single-shot echo-planar (SS-EPI) and multi-shot echo-planar (IMS-EPI) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in female pelvis METHODS: This was a prospective study involving 80 females who underwent 3.0T pelvic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). SS-EPI and IMS-EPI DWI were acquired with 3 b values (0, 400, 800 s/mm(2)). Two independent reviewers assessed the overall image quality, artifacts, sharpness, and lesion conspicuity based on a 5-point Likert scale. Regions of interest (ROI) were placed on the endometrium and the gluteus muscles to quantify the signal intensities and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). Signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and geometric distortion were quantified on both sequences. Inter-rater agreement was assessed using κ statistics and Kendall test. Qualitative scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test and quantitative parameters were compared with paired t test and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: IMS-EPI demonstrated better image quality than SS-EPI for all aspects evaluated (SS-EPI vs. IMS-EPI: overall quality 3.04 vs. 4.17, artifacts 3.09 vs. 3.99, sharpness 2.40 vs. 4.32, lesion conspicuity 3.20 vs. 4.25; p < 0.001). Good agreement and correlation were observed between two reviewers (SS-EPI κ 0.699, r 0.742; IMS-EPI κ 0.702, r 0.789). IMS-EPI showed lower geometric distortion, SNR, and CNR than SS-EPI (p < 0.050). There was no significant difference in the mean ADC between the two sequences. CONCLUSION: IMS-EPI showed better image quality with lower geometric distortion without affecting the quantification of ADC, though the SNR and CNR decreased due to post-processing limitations. KEY POINTS: • IMS-EPI showed better image quality than SS-EPI. • IMS-EPI showed lower geometric distortion without affecting ADC compared with SS-EPI. • The SNR and CNR of IMS-EPI decreased due to post-processing limitations. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2019-12-10 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7062860/ /pubmed/31822971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06491-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. |
spellingShingle | Magnetic Resonance An, He Ma, Xiaodong Pan, Ziyi Guo, Hua Lee, Elaine Yuen Phin Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
title | Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
title_full | Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
title_fullStr | Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
title_full_unstemmed | Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
title_short | Qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
title_sort | qualitative and quantitative comparison of image quality between single-shot echo-planar and interleaved multi-shot echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging in female pelvis |
topic | Magnetic Resonance |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7062860/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31822971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06491-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT anhe qualitativeandquantitativecomparisonofimagequalitybetweensingleshotechoplanarandinterleavedmultishotechoplanardiffusionweightedimaginginfemalepelvis AT maxiaodong qualitativeandquantitativecomparisonofimagequalitybetweensingleshotechoplanarandinterleavedmultishotechoplanardiffusionweightedimaginginfemalepelvis AT panziyi qualitativeandquantitativecomparisonofimagequalitybetweensingleshotechoplanarandinterleavedmultishotechoplanardiffusionweightedimaginginfemalepelvis AT guohua qualitativeandquantitativecomparisonofimagequalitybetweensingleshotechoplanarandinterleavedmultishotechoplanardiffusionweightedimaginginfemalepelvis AT leeelaineyuenphin qualitativeandquantitativecomparisonofimagequalitybetweensingleshotechoplanarandinterleavedmultishotechoplanardiffusionweightedimaginginfemalepelvis |