3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T
- PMID: 19001653
- DOI: 10.1148/rg.287075154
3.0-T MR imaging of the abdomen: comparison with 1.5 T
Abstract
Three-tesla magnetic resonance (MR) imaging offers substantially higher signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) than 1.5-T MR imaging does, which can be used to improve image resolution and shorten imaging time. Because of these increases in SNR and CNR, as well as changes in T1 and T2 relaxation times, an increase in magnetic susceptibility, and an increase in chemical shift effect, many abdominal applications can benefit from 3.0-T imaging. Increased CNR obtained with a gadolinium-based contrast agent improves lesion conspicuity, requires less intravenous contrast material, and improves MR angiography by increasing spatial and temporal resolution. Increased SNR improves fluid conspicuity and resolution for applications such as MR cholangiopancreatography. Increased chemical shift effect also improves spectral resolution for MR spectroscopy. Several potential problems remain for abdominal imaging at 3.0 T. Limitations on energy deposition may require compromises in pulse sequence timing and flip angles. These compromises result in prolonged imaging time and altered image contrast. Magnetic susceptibility and chemical shift artifacts are worsened, but they may be counteracted by shortening echo time, performing parallel imaging, and increasing bandwidth. Radiofrequency field inhomogeneity is also a major concern in imaging larger fields of view and often leads to standing wave effects and large local variations in signal intensity. Many issues related to MR device compatibility and safety have yet to be addressed at 3.0 T. A 3.0-T MR imaging system has a higher initial cost and a higher cost of upkeep than a 1.5-T system does.
Similar articles
-
Abdominal applications of 3.0-T MR imaging: comparative review versus a 1.5-T system.Radiographics. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):e30. doi: 10.1148/rg.e30. Epub 2008 Apr 21. Radiographics. 2008. PMID: 18426969 Review.
-
Use of 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluation of the abdomen.Radiographics. 2009 Oct;29(6):1547-63. doi: 10.1148/rg.296095516. Radiographics. 2009. PMID: 19959507
-
Abdominal MR imaging at 3T.Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006 Feb;14(1):17-26. doi: 10.1016/j.mric.2005.12.001. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2006. PMID: 16530632 Review.
-
Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges.Radiographics. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):1445-62; discussion 1462-4. doi: 10.1148/rg.275065204. Radiographics. 2007. PMID: 17848702 Review.
-
Abdominal MR imaging at 3.0 T.Radiographics. 2007 Sep-Oct;27(5):1433-44; discussion 1462-4. doi: 10.1148/rg.275075023. Radiographics. 2007. PMID: 17848701
Cited by
-
Whole-body MRI-based long-term evaluation of pediatric NF1 patients without initial tumor burden with evidence of newly developed peripheral nerve sheath tumors.Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024 Nov 4;19(1):412. doi: 10.1186/s13023-024-03420-6. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2024. PMID: 39497113 Free PMC article.
-
Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Liver (Including Biliary Contrast Agents) Part 1: Technical Considerations and Contrast Materials.Semin Roentgenol. 2016 Oct;51(4):308-316. doi: 10.1053/j.ro.2016.05.015. Epub 2016 May 30. Semin Roentgenol. 2016. PMID: 27743567 Free PMC article. Review. No abstract available.
-
Influence of the Magnetic Field Strength on Image Contrast in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR Imaging: Comparison between 1.5T and 3.0T.Magn Reson Med Sci. 2017 Apr 10;16(2):109-114. doi: 10.2463/mrms.mp.2015-0158. Epub 2016 Apr 28. Magn Reson Med Sci. 2017. PMID: 27151747 Free PMC article.
-
Characterizing Computed Tomography-Detected Arterial Hyperenhancing-Only Lesions in Patients at Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Can Non-Contrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Be Used for Sequential Imaging?Korean J Radiol. 2020 Mar;21(3):280-289. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0447. Korean J Radiol. 2020. PMID: 32090520 Free PMC article.
-
MRI features of histologic subtypes of hepatocellular carcinoma: correlation with histologic, genetic, and molecular biologic classification.Eur Radiol. 2022 Aug;32(8):5119-5133. doi: 10.1007/s00330-022-08643-4. Epub 2022 Mar 8. Eur Radiol. 2022. PMID: 35258675 Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical