Background: Non-uniformity in signal intensity occurs commonly in magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, which may pose substantial problems when using a 3T scanner. Therefore, image non-uniformity correction is usually applied. Purpose: To compare the correction effects of the phased-array uniformity enhancement (PURE), a calibration-based image non-uniformity correction method, among three different software versions in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Material and Methods: Hepatobiliary-phase images of a total of 120 patients who underwent Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging on the same 3T scanner were analyzed retrospectively. Forty patients each were examined using three software versions (DV25, DV25.1, and DV26). The effects of PURE were compared by visual assessment, histogram analysis of liver signal intensity, evaluation of the spatial distribution of correction effects, and evaluation of quantitative indices of liver parenchymal enhancement. Results: The visual assessment indicated the highest uniformity of PURE-corrected images for DV26, followed by DV25 and DV25.1. Histogram analysis of corrected images demonstrated significantly larger variations in liver signal for DV25.1 than for the other two versions. Although PURE caused a relative increase in pixel values for central and lateral regions, such effects were weaker for DV25.1 than for the other two versions. In the evaluation of quantitative indices of liver parenchymal enhancement, the liver-to-muscle ratio (LMR) was significantly higher for the corrected images than for the uncorrected images, but the liver-to-spleen ratio (LSR) showed no significant differences. For corrected images, the LMR was significantly higher for DV25 and DV26 than for DV25.1, but the LSR showed no significant differences among the three versions. Conclusion: There were differences in the effects of PURE among the three software versions in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Even if the non-uniformity correction method has the same brand name, correction effects may differ depending on the software version, and these differences may affect visual and quantitative evaluations.
References
[1]
Bernstein, M.A., Huston 3rd, J. and Ward, H.A. (2006) Imaging Artifacts at 3.0T. Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 24, 735-746. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.20698
[2]
Soher, B.J., Dale, B.M. and Merkle, E.M. (2007) A Review of MR Physics: 3T versus 1.5T. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America, 15, 277-290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2007.06.002
[3]
Dietrich, O., Reiser, M.F. and Schoenberg, S.O. (2008) Artifacts in 3-T MRI: Physical Background and Reduction Strategies. European Journal of Radiology, 65, 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.11.005
[4]
Liney, G.P., Owen, S.C., Beaumont, A.K.E., Lazar, V.R., Manton, D.J. and Beavis, A.W. (2013) Commissioning of a New Wide-Bore MRI Scanner for Radiotherapy Planning of Head and Neck Cancer. British Journal of Radiology, 86, Article ID: 20130150. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20130150
[5]
Thomas, M.S., Greenwood, R., Nolan, C., Malcolm, P.N. and Toms, A.P. (2014) Optimizing MRI of Small Joints and Extremities. Clinical Radiology, 69, e414-e421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.06.002
[6]
Felemban, D., Verdonschot, R.G., Iwamoto, Y., Uchiyama, Y., Kakimoto, N., Kreiborg, S. and Murakami, S. (2018) A Quantitative Experimental Phantom Study on MRI Image Uniformity. Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, 47, Article ID: 20180077. https://doi.org/10.1259/dmfr.20180077
[7]
Murakami, T., Sofue, K. and Hori, M. (2022) Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Gd-EOB-DTPA MR Imaging. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences, 21, 168-181. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.rev.2021-0031
[8]
Li, X-Q., Wang, X., Zhao, D-W., Sun, J., Liu, J-J., Lin, D-D., Yang, G., Liu, H., Xia, Z-Y., Jia, C-Y. and Li, H-J. (2020) Application of Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in Hepatocellular Carcinoma. World Journal of Surgical Oncology, 18, Article No. 219. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12957-020-01996-4
[9]
Van Beers, B.E., Pastor, C.M. and Hussain, H.K. (2012) Primovist, Eovist: What to Expect? Journal of Hepatology, 57, 421-429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2012.01.031
[10]
Inchingo, R., Faletti, R., Grazioli, L., Tricario, E., Gatti, M., Pecorelli, A. and Ippolito, D. (2018) MR with Gd-EOB-DTPA in Assessment of Liver Nodules in Cirrhotic Patients. World Journal of Hepatology, 10, 462-473. https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v10.i7.462
[11]
Ogasawara, G., Inoue, Y., Matsunaga, K., Fujii, K., Hata, H. and Takato, Y. (2017) Image Non-Uniformity Correction for 3-T Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced MR Imaging of the Liver. Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences, 16, 115-122. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.mp.2016-0012
[12]
Bae, K.E., Kim, S.Y., Lee, S.S., Kim, K.W., Won, H.J., Shin, Y.M., Kim, P.N. and Lee, M-G. (2012) Assessment of Hepatic Function with Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Hepatic MRI. Digestive Diseases, 30, 617-622. https://doi.org/10.1159/000343092
[13]
Poetter Lang, S., Bastati, N., Messner, A., Kristic, A., Heroid, A., Hodge, J.C. and Ba-Ssalamah, A. (2020) Quantification of Liver Function Using Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI. Abdominal Radiology, 45, 3532-3544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02779-x
[14]
Bártulos, C.R., Senk, K., Schumacher, M., Plath, J., Kaiser, N., Bade, R., Woetzel, J. and Wiggermann, P. (2022) Assessment of Liver Function with MRI: Where Do We Stand? Frontiers in Medicine, 9, Article 839919. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.839919
[15]
Ai, X., Wang, H., Yang, Y., Feng, Y., Xie, X., Zhao, X., Li, J., Yao, P. and Zhu, Q. (2023) Four Indices on Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced MRI Can Estimate Liver Functional Reserve Compared to ICG-R15: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Clinical Imaging, 102, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2023.06.018
[16]
Mori, H. and Akimoto, S. (2022) Liver-Spleen Contrast Standardization of Gadolinium-Ethoxybenzyl-Diethylenetriamine Penta-Acetic Acid-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging Based on Cross-Calibration. Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery, 12, 5343-5357. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims-22-174
