Stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) diffusion tensor imaging with different diffusion encoding times in the supraspinatus muscle: Test–retest reliability and comparison to spin echo diffusion tensor imaging

Adrian Alexander Marth,Stefan Sommer,Thorsten Feiweier,Reto Sutter,Daniel Nanz,Constantin von Deuster
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.5279
2024-10-26
NMR in Biomedicine
Abstract:This study evaluated diffusion metrics (fractional anisotropy [FA], mean diffusivity [MD]) and signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) in the supraspinatus muscle obtained with a stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM) diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) sequence with different mixing times and compared them to measurements obtained with a spin echo (SE) sequence. STEAM resulted in higher FA and lower MD compared to SE. SNR decreased with increasing STEAM mixing time. Test–retest reliability for diffusion metrics was good to excellent for both STEAM and SE. Diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) provides insight into the skeletal muscle microstructure and can be acquired using a stimulated echo acquisition mode (STEAM)‐based approach to quantify time‐dependent tissue diffusion. This study examined diffusion metrics and signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR) in the supraspinatus muscle obtained with a STEAM‐DTI sequence with different diffusion encoding times (Δ) and compared them to measures from a spin echo (SE) sequence. Ten healthy subjects (mean age 31.5 ± 4.7 years; five females) underwent 3‐Tesla STEAM and SE‐DTI of the shoulder in three sessions. STEAM was acquired with Δ of 100/200/400/600 ms. The diffusion encoding time in SE scans was 19 ms (b = 500 s/mm2). Region of interest‐based measurement of fractional anisotropy (FA), mean diffusivity (MD), and SNR was performed. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were computed to assess test–retest reliability. ANOVA with post‐hoc pairwise tests was used to compare measures between different Δ of STEAM as well as STEAM and SE, respectively. FA was significantly higher (FASTEAM: 0.38–0.46 vs. FASE: 0.26) and MD significantly lower (MDSTEAM: 1.20–1.33 vs. MDSE: 1.62 × 10−3 mm2/s) in STEAM compared to SE (p
radiology, nuclear medicine & medical imaging,biophysics,spectroscopy
What problem does this paper attempt to address?