Acceleration techniques and their impact on arterial input function sampling: Non-accelerated versus view-sharing and compressed sensing sequences. Issue 104 (July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Benz, Matthias R.; Bongartz, Georg; Froehlich, Johannes M.; Winkel, David; Boll, Daniel T.; Heye, Tobias
• Is Part Of: European journal of radiology. Issue 104(2018)
• Page Start: 8
• Page End: 13
• Publication Date: 2018-07
• Subjects: Dynamic contrast enhanced -- Magnetic resonance imaging -- Arterial input function -- Acceleration techniques -- Variation; Medical radiology -- Periodicals; Radiology -- Periodicals; Radiologie médicale -- Périodiques; Medical radiology; Periodicals; 616.075705
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.04.022
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0720-048X

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: The aim was to investigate the variation of the arterial input function (AIF) within and between various DCE MRI sequences. Material and methods: A dynamic flow-phantom and steady signal reference were scanned on a 3T MRI using fast low angle shot (FLASH) 2d, FLASH3d (parallel imaging factor (P) = P0, P2, P4), volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) (P = P0, P3, P2 × 2, P2 × 3, P3 × 2), golden-angle radial sparse parallel imaging (GRASP), and time-resolved imaging with stochastic trajectories (TWIST). Signal over time curves were normalized and quantitatively analyzed by full width half maximum (FWHM) measurements to assess variation within and between sequences. Results: The coefficient of variation (CV) for the steady signal reference ranged from 0.07-0.8%. The non-accelerated gradient echo FLASH2d, FLASH3d, and VIBE sequences showed low within sequence variation with 2.1%, 1.0%, and 1.6%. The maximum FWHM CV was 3.2% for parallel imaging acceleration (VIBE P2 × 3), 2.7% for GRASP and 9.1% for TWIST. The FWHM CV between sequences ranged from 8.5–14.4% for most non-accelerated/accelerated gradient echo sequences except 6.2% for FLASH3d P0 and 0.3% for FLASH3d P2; GRASP FWHM CV was 9.9% versus 28% for TWIST. Conclusion: MRI acceleration techniques vary in reproducibility and quantification of the AIF. Incomplete coverage of the k-space with TWIST as a representative of view-sharing techniques showed the highest variation within sequences and might be less suited for reproducible quantification of the AIF