Ting Yuan1, Yan Sha2, Zhongshuai Zhang3, Xilan Liu4, Xinpei Ye5, Yaru Sheng5, Kun Zhou6, and Caixia Fu6
1Shanghai Insititute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai, China, 2Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, 3Siemens Healthcare Ltd, Shanghai, China, 4Department of Radiology, Shanghai Ninth People’s Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University, Shanghai, China, 5Department of Radiology, Eye & ENT Hospital of Shanghai Medical School, Fudan University, Shanghai, China, 6Department of Digitalization, Siemens Shenzhen Magnetic Resonance Ltd., Shenzhen, China
Synopsis
This study investigated the role of RESOLVE and TGSE DWI
sequences in the evaluation of optic neuritis and compared their image
qualities qualitatively and quantitatively. We found that TGSE significantly
improved the image quality for the evaluation of optic neuritis by reducing the
susceptibility induced image distortion compared with RESOLVE. However, it
appeared lower SNR and CNR than that of RESOLVE images.
Purpose:
To investigate and compare the
role of readout segmented echo-planer imaging (RESOLVE) and
a 2D turbo gradient and spin-echo (TGSE) diffusion-weighted
(DW) pulse sequence with non-Cartesian BLADE trajectory in the evaluation
of optic neuritis qualitatively and quantitatively.Materials and methods:
Both RESOLVE and TGSE
images of 34 optic nerves were acquired from 28 patients on a 3T MR scanner
(MAGNETOM Prisma, SIEMENS Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) with a 64-channel
head&neck coil. The
parameters for TGSE BLADE DWI were as follows: TR/ TE = 4000/62 ms, slice
thickness/gap = 2/0.2 mm, slices = 21, bandwidth = 520 Hz/Px, field of view
(FOV) = 280 × 280 mm, matrix = 192 × 192, voxel size = 1.5 × 1.5 × 2.0 mm,
number of excitations (NEX) = 1, 4 scan trace mode, b = 0, 1000 s/mm2, turbo
factor = 13, EPI factor = 3, and the data acquisition time was 3min46s. For
REOSLVE DWI, the imaging parameters were: TR/TE = 5020/53 ms, slice
thickness/gap = 2/0.2 mm, slices = 21, bandwidth =766Hz/Px, field of view (FOV)
= 230 × 230 mm, matrix = 192 × 192, voxel size = 1.2 × 1.2 × 2.0 mm, 4 scan
trace mode, b = 0, 1000 s/mm2, and the data acquisition time was 3min46s. Both
sequences were applied for transversal and coronal planes, respectively. Conspicuity and the distortions of lesions, degree of ghosting
artifact, uniformity of fat suppression, and the overall image quality of the
RESOLVE and TGSE images were qualitatively evaluated by two radiologists (scoring
details seen in table 1). Distortion was also quantitatively evaluated by
comparing the distances between the same anatomic points on TSE-T1WI, TSE-T2WI,
RESOLVE and TGSE images. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values,
signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs), and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) of the two
DWIs were compared as well.Results:
The comparisons of the qualitative
scores indicated that TGSE significantly improved the uniformity of fat
suppression and reduced degree of ghosting artifact. The distortion of the lesions
is extremely improved, especially in ADC maps. However, the conspicuity of
lesions is better on RESOLVE images. Quantitative evaluations revealed that TGSE
almost completely remove the distortion. The ADC values of the optic nerves on TGSE
were lower than those on RESOLVE, as well as the brainstem. Both of the SNR and
CNR of TGSE were lower than RESOLVE. The results of the comparisons mentioned
above are listed in table 2.Conclusion:
TGSE significantly improved the
image quality for evaluations of optic neuritis by reducing the susceptibility
artifacts and distortion compared with RESOLVE. However, it appeared
blurrier than RESOLVE images.
Acknowledgements
References
1. Hu Houchun H,McAllister Aaron S,Jin Ning et al. Comparison of 2D BLADE Turbo Gradient- and Spin-Echo and 2D Spin-Echo Echo-Planar Diffusion-Weighted Brain MRI at 3 T: Preliminary Experience in Children.[J] .Acad Radiol, 2019, undefined: undefined.
2. Held P,Seitz J,Fründ R et al. Comparison of two-dimensional gradient echo, turbo spin echo and two-dimensional turbo gradient spin echo sequences in MRI of the cervical spinal cord anatomy.[J] .Eur J Radiol, 2001, 38: 64-71.
3. Porter DA,
Heidemann RM. High resolution diffusion-weighted imaging using readout-segmented
echo-planar imaging, parallel imaging and a two-dimesional navigator-based
reacquisition. Magn Reson Med. 2009;62:468-475.
4. De Foer B, Vercruysse JP, Pilet B, et al. Single-shot, turbo spin-echo,
diffusion-weighted imaging versus spin-echo-planar, diffusion-weighted imaging
in the detection of acquired middle ear cholesteatoma. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology. Aug 2006;27(7):1480-1482.
5. Dhepnorrarat
RC, Wood B, Rajan GP. Postoperative non-echo-planar diffusion-weighted magnetic
resonance imaging changes after cholesteatoma surgery: implications for
cholesteatoma screening. Otology &
neurotology : official publication of the American Otological Society, American
Neurotology Society [and] European Academy of Otology and Neurotology. Jan
2009;30(1):54-58.