Comparison of generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions and modified sensitivity encoding for diffusion tensor imaging.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DTI) of the brain is usually acquired with single-shot echo-planar imaging, which is associated with localized signal loss, geometric distortions, and blurring. Parallel imaging can lessen these artifacts by shortening the length of the echo-train acquisition. The self-calibrating parallel acquisition techniques, image domain-based modified sensitivity encoding (mSENSE) and k-space-based generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA), were evaluated with DTI of the brain in 5 healthy subjects. METHODS GRAPPA and mSENSE with higher acceleration factors (R) up to 4 were compared with conventional DTI (with and without phase partial Fourier, another method of reducing the echo-train length) on a 1.5T Sonata scanner (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). The resulting images and diffusion maps were evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative analysis was performed by 3 reviewers blinded to the technique using image sharpness and the level of artifacts as characteristics for scoring each set of images. Quantitative comparisons encompassed measuring signal-to-noise ratio, Trace/3 apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), and fractional anisotropy (FA) in 6 white-matter (WM) and gray-matter (GM) regions. RESULTS Reviewers scored the GRAPPA and mSENSE R = 2 images better than images acquired with conventional techniques. FA contrast was improved at the GM/WM junction in peripheral brain areas. Trace/3 ADC and FA measurements were consistent for all methods. However, R = 3,4 images suffered from reconstruction-related artifacts. CONCLUSIONS GRAPPA and mSENSE (R = 2) minimized the susceptibility and off-resonance effects associated with conventional DTI methods, yielding high-quality images and reproducible quantitative diffusion measurements.

[1]  D. Parker,et al.  A geometric analysis of diffusion tensor measurements of the human brain , 2000, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[2]  Roland Bammer,et al.  Current Concepts and Advances in Clinical Parallel Magnetic Resonance Imaging , 2004, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[3]  Peter Hunold,et al.  Parallel acquisition techniques for accelerated volumetric interpolated breath‐hold examination magnetic resonance imaging of the upper abdomen: Assessment of image quality and lesion conspicuity , 2005, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[4]  S. Schoenberg,et al.  Practical approaches to the evaluation of signal‐to‐noise ratio performance with parallel imaging: Application with cardiac imaging and a 32‐channel cardiac coil , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[5]  Robin M Heidemann,et al.  Generalized autocalibrating partially parallel acquisitions (GRAPPA) , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[6]  P. Boesiger,et al.  SENSE‐DTI at 3 T , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[7]  Robin M Heidemann,et al.  SMASH, SENSE, PILS, GRAPPA: How to Choose the Optimal Method , 2004, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[8]  P Boesiger,et al.  Influence of SENSE on image properties in high‐resolution single‐shot echo‐planar DTI , 2006, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[9]  Roland Bammer,et al.  Fast Patient Workup in Acute Stroke Using Parallel Imaging , 2004, Topics in magnetic resonance imaging : TMRI.

[10]  Jürgen Gieseke,et al.  Sensitivity encoding for fast MR imaging of the brain in patients with stroke. , 2003, Radiology.

[11]  R M Harrison,et al.  A comparison of two methods for measuring the signal to noise ratio on MR images , 1999, Physics in medicine and biology.

[12]  Jianmin Wang,et al.  Field‐of‐view limitations in parallel imaging , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[13]  R. Stollberger,et al.  Improved diffusion‐weighted single‐shot echo‐planar imaging (EPI) in stroke using sensitivity encoding (SENSE) , 2001, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[14]  A. Luciani,et al.  Comparison of in vitro and in vivo MRI of the spine using parallel imaging. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[15]  Peter B Kingsley,et al.  Contrast‐to‐noise ratios of diffusion anisotropy indices , 2005, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[16]  Susumu Mori,et al.  Brain fiber tracking with clinically feasible diffusion-tensor MR imaging: initial experience. , 2003, Radiology.

[17]  P. Boesiger,et al.  SENSE: Sensitivity encoding for fast MRI , 1999, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[18]  L. Axel,et al.  Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. , 1990, Medical physics.

[19]  Roland Bammer,et al.  Diffusion tensor imaging using single‐shot SENSE‐EPI , 2002, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[20]  Hangyi Jiang,et al.  High-Resolution Diffusion Tensor Imaging of the Brain Stem at 3 T , 2003 .

[21]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Sensitivity encoding for diffusion-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study. , 2005, Radiology.

[22]  S. T. Nichols,et al.  Quantitative evaluation of several partial fourier reconstruction algorithms used in mri , 1993, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[23]  Peter Hunold,et al.  Parallel acquisition techniques in cardiac cine magnetic resonance imaging using TrueFISP sequences: Comparison of image quality and artifacts , 2004, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.