The comparison of sagittal full field-of-view and reduced field-of-view intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of spinal bone marrow
Dong XING,Yun-fei ZHA,Fang LIU,Liang LI,Wei GONG,Lei HU,Yuan LIN,Xue-song LU,Chang-sheng LIU
DOI: https://doi.org/10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2017.12.004
2017-01-01
Abstract:Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare image quality and the intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) parameters obtained with full FOV or reduced FOV IVIM imaging. Materials and Methods: Twenty-six healthy volunteers (12 male, 14 female) with age of 41.12±14.96 years (Mean±SD) were enrolled in this retrospective study. The lumbar imaging protocol included routine imaging, rFOV IVIM DWI (FOV 32 cm×12.8 cm, b=0 s/mm2, 15 s/mm2, 30 s/mm2, 50 s/mm2, 70 s/mm2, 100 s/mm2, 300 s/mm2, 500 s/mm2, 800 s/mm2 ) and fFOV IVIM DWI ( FOV 32 cm×32 cm, b=0 s/mm2, 15 s/mm2, 30 s/mm2, 50 s/mm2, 70 s/mm2, 100 s/mm2, 300 s/mm2, 500 s/mm2, 800 s/mm2). Raw rFOV and fFOV IVIM DWI data were post-processed by Functool provided in Advantage Workstation (version 4.6, GE), and each vertebral body was selected as a region of interest (ROI). Image quality of rFOV and fFOV IVIM DW images were qualitatively evaluated by using a 5-point likert scale. IVIM DWI distortion was quantitatively evaluated by calculating the distortion rate of L3 vertebral body. The quantitative measurements and qualitative scores of IVIM DW images were performed by two radiologists who were blinded to the clinical and sequences information, and the consistency of the two readers was evaluated, and the mean IVIM parameters, qualitative scores, and distortion ratios of the two readers were calculated. The IVIM parameters (ADCfast, ADCslow, f), qualitative scores, and distortion ratios of the two IVIM DWI were compared with paired t-test or Wilcoxon's test according to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Results: In this study, there was good inter reader agreement in IVIM parameters, qualitative scores and distortion rate of rFOV-IVIM DWI and fFOV IVIM DWI. Statistically significant differences in ADCfast (t=-9.92, P<0.01) , ADCslow (Z=-2.20, P<0.05), f (t=-17.86, P<0.01), image quality scores (Z=-12.76, P<0.01), area distortion rate (Z=-4.27, P<0.01), and anteroposterior distances distortion rate (Z=-6.20, P<0.01) between rFOV and fFOV IVIM DWI was observed, while no significant difference in craniocaudal distances distortion rate (t=-0.50, P=0.62) between rFOV and fFOV IVIM DWI was observed. Conclusions: Compared with fFOV IVIM, rFOV IVIM DW images of spine bone marrow show improved image quality, and rFOV IVIM technique of spine may help to obtain relatively accurate IVIM parameters.