Abdominal magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T what is the ultimate gain in signal-to-noise ratio?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to calculate the gain in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of four human abdominal tissues at 3.0 Tesla (T) compared with standard 1.5 T and to validate this calculation in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS The expected gain in SNR at 3.0 T in the liver, pancreas, spleen, and kidney compared with standard 1.5 T was approximated theoretically for a T2-weighted HASTE (half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo) and a T1-weighted gradient-echo in- and opposed-phase sequence. Fifteen healthy male subjects underwent abdominal MR imaging using a 1.5 T and 3.0 T scanner. Coronal T2-weighted HASTE images and axial T1-weighted gradient-echo in- and opposed-phase images were acquired using the sequence parameters optimized by the vendor. RESULTS Except for opposed-phased imaging of pancreatic tissue, in vivo adjusted SNR values of all abdominal tissues were significantly higher at 3.0 T for all sequences (P < .05). The highest overall gain in SNR was achieved with the HASTE sequence ranging from 3.8-fold for renal imaging to 7.4-fold for hepatic imaging. The theoretical calculation of SNR gain was in good agreement with the experimentally measured gain in SNR for the HASTE and the in-phase sequence. CONCLUSION High-field abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 T offers significantly higher SNR compared with standard 1.5 T MR imaging.

[1]  J. Bloem,et al.  Quantitative analysis of focal masses at MR imaging: a plea for standardization. , 2004, Radiology.

[2]  W. Edelstein,et al.  The intrinsic signal‐to‐noise ratio in NMR imaging , 1986, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[3]  Jacob Sosna,et al.  Determinations of prostate volume at 3-Tesla using an external phased array coil: comparison to pathologic specimens. , 2003, Academic radiology.

[4]  R. Lenkinski,et al.  Breathhold abdominal and thoracic proton MR spectroscopy at 3T , 2003, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[5]  Garry E Gold,et al.  Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: initial clinical experience. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  W. Heindel,et al.  Acute and subacute intracerebral hemorrhages: comparison of MR imaging at 1.5 and 3.0 T--initial experience. , 2004, Radiology.

[7]  S. Schmitz,et al.  A comparison of MR cholangiopancreatography at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. , 2005, The British journal of radiology.

[8]  3.0-T high-field magnetic resonance imaging of the female pelvis: preliminary experiences , 2005, European Radiology.

[9]  M. Bronskill,et al.  T1, T2 relaxation and magnetization transfer in tissue at 3T , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[10]  E. Merkle,et al.  Abdominal MR imaging at 3T. , 2006, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[11]  T. Foster,et al.  A review of normal tissue hydrogen NMR relaxation times and relaxation mechanisms from 1-100 MHz: dependence on tissue type, NMR frequency, temperature, species, excision, and age. , 1984, Medical physics.

[12]  Diego R. Martín,et al.  Approach to abdominal imaging at 1.5 Tesla and optimization at 3 Tesla. , 2005, Magnetic resonance imaging clinics of North America.

[13]  Graham Wright,et al.  Musculoskeletal MRI at 3.0 T: relaxation times and image contrast. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[14]  M. L. Lauzon,et al.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3.0 Tesla: Challenges and Advantages in Clinical Neurological Imaging , 2003, Investigative radiology.

[15]  N. Rofsky,et al.  MR imaging relaxation times of abdominal and pelvic tissues measured in vivo at 3.0 T: preliminary results. , 2004, Radiology.