Qi Wan1, Xinchun Li1, Qiang Lei1, Tianjing Zhang2, and Zhongping Zhang2
1The first affiliated hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China, 2Philips Healthcare, Guangzhou, China
Synopsis
The image quality of single-shot echo-planar imaging (EPI)-DWI
(SS-EPI-DWI) is usually deteriorated by susceptibility artefacts, especially in
lung, because EPI sequence is vulnerable to magnetic inhomogeneity and phase
error accumulation. This could lead to inabilities of diagnosis or inaccuracy
of measurements. In this study, lung DWI were acquired using
both single-shot turbo spin-echo (SS-TSE) and SS-EPI techniques. Significantly
changes were observed in distortion
ratio (DR) between both techniques. SS-TSE-DWI has better image
quality and almost zero distortion compared to SS-EPI-DWI.
Introduction
Lung cancer is one of the most common
malignancies accompanying with the highest mortality. Diagnosis and
characterization of solitary pulmonary lesions (SPLs) are significant for
clinical management. In addition, IVIM or DWI, serving as promising imaging
tools, have performed well in aspects of tumor characterization[1-3] and
treatment response assessment[4] etc. in lung. To date, the majority of studies
on the basis of lung DWI studies were conducted using single-shot echo planar
imaging (EPI) technique[5] mainly due to its short scan time. However, EPI-DWI
suffers from susceptibility distortion that may reduce reproducibility[6] and diagnostic
efficiency[7]. By contrast, turbo spin-echo (TSE)-DWI is a robust method against distortion and artifacts due to
the usage of radio frequency (RF) refocusing pulses. In this study, intravoxel
incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) was used and compared
using TSE and EPI for the purpose of pulmonary lesion evaluation.Material and Methods
A total of 10 consecutive patients with
solid SPLs confirmed by computed tomography findings were referred to MR
imaging. DWI data was acquired using both single-shot(SS) TSE sequence and SS-EPI
sequence with free breathing. Both sequences were scanned twice. Five b values from
0 - 800 s/mm2 were used (0, 20, 50, 200 and 800 s/mm2). The EPI sequence
parameters were as follows: field of view (FOV) 375×305 mm, repetition
time (TR)/ echo time (TE) 1195ms/54ms, thickness 5 mm, acquisition voxel size 3×3×5 mm,
NSA 3, EPI factor 51 and scanning time 1 min. The TSE sequence parameters were also
as follows: FOV 375×305 mm, TR/TE 6197ms/60ms, thickness 5 mm, acquisition
voxel size 3×3×5 mm, NSA 2, TSE factor 56, scanning time 3 min 18 sec. Region
of interests (ROIs) were delineated by two experienced readers independently and
placed in the lesions, thoracic muscle and background for the measurement of signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise (CNR). For the evaluation of distortion,
fusion images were created by superimposing DWI on T2WI using RadiAnt DICOM
Viewer (Version 4.6.5.18450, https://www.radiantviewer.com/). Multiple b-value
DWI images were postprocessed using IVIM biexponential model in IMAgenGINE MRI
Diffusion Toolbox (Beta V2.0.3, Vusion Tech, China). Short-term test-retest
repeatability was assessed with mean coefficient of variation (CV) averaged for
both readers.Results
Figure 1 shows that distortion ratio (DR)
of SS-TSE-DWI was significantly smaller than that of SS-EPI-DWI (P<0.001). In
addition, the values of SNR and CNR were similar on the basis of SS-TSE-DWI and
SS-EPI-DWI techniques (P>0.05). The comparison of different diffusion
parameters between two groups is displayed in figure 2. ADC and IVIM-derived D
of TSE-DWI showed significant higher values than those of EPI-DWI (P=0.028 and
0.021 respectively). However, D* and f showed a huge overlapping between the
two groups (P>0.05). Comparing two representative cases using two techniques
were shown in figure 3 and 4. Test-retest repeatability of IVIM parameters was
satisfactory for ADC and D (EPI-DWI mean CV 0.12 and 0.15, TSE-DWI mean CV 0.16
and 0.14), but relatively poor for f and D*(EPI-DWI mean CV 0.23 and 0.50,
TSE-DWI mean CV 0.36 and 0.51).
Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first study comparing SS-EPI-DWI with SS-TSE-DWI sequences for the evaluation
of pulmonary nodules in terms of image quality and IVIM parameters. Our results
showed that TSE-DWI possesses excellent image quality for its lack of image
distortion resulting from susceptibility effects and eddy currents as compared
to EPI-DWI on a 3T MR system. In addition, ADC and D values of TSE-DWI showed
significant higher values than those of EPI-DWI suggestting that the
established criterion in EPI-DWI, such as cutoff value for differentiation of SPLs,
could not be generalized to TSE-DWI. Therefore, there is a need of exploring
new cutoff value in a large cohort study for evaluation of SPLs using TSE-DWI.
However, higher test-retest repeatabilities were found for ADC and D than for f
and D* parameters in both EPI and TSE sequences, which suggests TSE-DWI could
not improve the robustness of perfusion parameters f and D* despite possessing significantly
lower image distortion.
Conclusion
Lung DWI or IVIM using TSE have almost zero
geometric distortion and displacement compared with EPI technique. TSE-DWI
could be a good alternative to EPI-DWI and have great potential of application for
evaluating pulmonary disease.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1. Wan Q, Deng YS, Lei Q, et al. Differentiating
between malignant and benign solid solitary pulmonary lesions: are intravoxel
incoherent motion and diffusion kurtosis imaging superior to conventional
diffusion-weighted imaging? European radiology 2018.
2. Yan C, Xu J, Xiong W, et al. Use of
intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging for assessment of
treatment response to invasive fungal infection in the lung. European radiology 2017;27(1):212-221.
3. Yuan M, Zhang YD, Zhu C, et al. Comparison
of intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted MR imaging with dynamic
contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiating lung cancer from benign solitary
pulmonary lesions. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 2016;43(3):669-679.
4. Shi C, Liu D,
Xiao Z, et al. Monitoring Tumor Response to Antivascular
Therapy Using Non-Contrast Intravoxel Incoherent Motion Diffusion-Weighted MRII.
Cancer research 2017;77(13):3491-3501.
5. Shen G, Hu S,
Deng H, Kuang A. Performance of DWI in the Nodal Characterization and
Assessment of Lung Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol.
2016;206(2):283-90.
6. Verhappen MH, Pouwels PJ, Ljumanovic R, et
al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in head and neck cancer: comparison between
half-fourier acquired single-shot turbo spin-echo and EPI techniques. AJNR Am J
Neuroradiol. 2012;33(7):1239-46.
7. Ohno Y, Koyama H, Yoshikawa T,
et al. Diffusion-weighted
MR imaging using FASE sequence for 3T MR system: Preliminary comparison of
capability for N-stage assessment by means of diffusion-weighted MR imaging
using EPI sequence, STIR FASE imaging and FDG PET/CT for non-small cell lung
cancer patients. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(11):2321-31.