Liver DWI suffers from signal voids introduced by elastic motion, mis-registration due to respiratory motion and low SNR. We propose to develop and evaluate a novel free-breathing DWI technique appropriate for the abdomen, in order to provide high SNR efficiency with predictable scan times, while avoiding motion-related artifacts. Evaluations showed that compared to respiratory-triggering acquisitions, the proposed DWI technique provided higher SNR and predictable scan times. Further, a motion-corrected averaging algorithm has the potential to correct for motion-related artifacts. Using optimized gradient waveforms, non-gated free-breathing acquisitions, and motion-corrected averaging techniques, high-SNR and motion-robust DWI of the liver may be achieved.
A motion-robust M1-optimized diffusion gradient waveform (MODI) and a standard monopolar waveform (MONO) were used to acquire DWI of the liver. For each gradient waveform, both FB and RT acquisitions were performed. For the FB acquisitions, an NLM-based algorithm (Fig.1) was used to address motion across repetitions and diffusion directions for each b value. After IRB approval and informed written consent, six healthy volunteers were scanned at 3T (GE Signa Premier) using flexible receive coils (AIR Technology, GE Healthcare, Waukesha, WI). The acquisition parameters are shown in Table.1. Three technical components were assessed: diffusion waveform (MODI vs. MONO); respiratory-motion mitigation (RT vs. FB); and signal averaging (direct averaging vs. NLM). For each acquisition and signal averaging method, DW images and corresponding ADC maps were generated. Performance comparisons included: ADC measurements in right and left liver lobes in MODI vs. MONO, SNR of averaged FB vs. RT images under comparable scan times, and motion-robustness and SNR of direct averaging (DA) vs. NLM. Additionally, assessment of respiratory-motion mitigation and signal averaging methods was performed retrospectively using fewer repetitions (50% and 20%), in order to assess the potential for faster acquisitions with the proposed approach. For each choice of technical components and number of repetitions, signal and noise levels of ADC maps were estimated by calculating means and standard deviations over co-localized ROIs.
Diffusion waveform (MODI vs. MONO): ADC values are more homogeneous across left and right lobes on MODI than on MONO (Fig.2,3). Regardless of acquisition modes and signal-averaging methods, ADC comparison between left and right lobes showed no significant difference in MODI (Fig.4.a). In contrast, a significant difference was observed in MONO (Fig.4.b), unless NLM was applied.
Respiratory-motion mitigation (RT vs. FB): Scan times with FB for both waveforms were fixed across volunteers, while RT scan times were longer on average and varied substantially across volunteers (Table.1). FB data reconstructed with NLM had similar signal levels but significantly lower noise levels compared to RT on MODI when 100% repetitions were used (Fig.4.c,d). As number of repetitions decreased, NLM tended to maintain lower noise levels than RT (Fig.3).
Signal averaging (DA vs. NLM): In both DWI and ADC maps (Fig.2,3), compared to DA, NLM reduced the mis-registration due to body motion, showed increased homogeneity throughout the liver, and higher spatial resolution overall. The mean and standard deviations of ADC values of NLM were comparable to those of DA; no significant difference found between them for any choice of waveforms or number of repetitions in either lobe (Fig.4).
[1] Koh, Dow-Mu, and David J. Collins. "Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology." American Journal of Roentgenology 188, no. 6 (2007): 1622-1635.
[2] Gourtsoyianni, Sofia, Nickolas Papanikolaou, Spyros Yarmenitis, Thomas Maris, Apostolos Karantanas, and Nicholas Gourtsoyiannis. "Respiratory gated diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: value of apparent diffusion coefficient measurements in the differentiation between most commonly encountered benign and malignant focal liver lesions." European Radiology 18, no. 3 (2008): 486-492.
[3] Kim, Tonsok, Takamichi Murakami, Satoru Takahashi, Masatoshi Hori, Kyo Tsuda, and Hironobu Nakamura. "Diffusion-weighted single-shot echoplanar MR imaging for liver disease." AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology 173, no. 2 (1999): 393-398.
[4] Zhang, Yuxin, Jim Holmes, Diego Hernando. "Motion-Robust and Blood-Suppressed M1-Optimized Diffusion MR Imaging of the Liver. " Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. Submitted for review.
[5] Pena-Nogales, Oscar, Yuxin Zhang, Xiaoke Wang, Rodrigo Luis-Garcia, Santiago Aja-Fernández, James H Holmes, and Diego Hernando. "Optimized Diffusion-Weighting Gradient Waveform Design (ODGD) formulation for motion compensation and concomitant gradient nulling." (2018). Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (2018). Early view.
[6] Aliotta, Eric, Holden H. Wu, and Daniel B. Ennis. "Convex optimized diffusion encoding (CODE) gradient waveforms for minimum echo time and bulk motion–compensated diffusion‐weighted MRI." Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 77, no. 2 (2017): 717-729.
[7] Kandpal, Harsh, Raju Sharma, Kulwant Singh Madhusudhan, and Kulwant Singh Kapoor. "Respiratory-triggered versus breath-hold diffusion-weighted MRI of liver lesions: comparison of image quality and apparent diffusion coefficient values." American Journal of Roentgenology 192, no. 4 (2009): 915-922.
[8] Kwee, Thomas C., Taro Takahara, Dow‐Mu Koh, Rutger AJ Nievelstein, and Peter R. Luijten. "Comparison and reproducibility of ADC measurements in breathhold, respiratory triggered, and free‐breathing diffusion‐weighted MR imaging of the liver." Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging: An Official Journal of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine 28, no. 5 (2008): 1141-1148.