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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: An, He, Ma, Xiaodong, Pan, Ziyi, Guo, Hua, Lee, Elaine Yuen Phin
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