Magnetic resonance imaging · 2026
Free-breathing 3D pancreatic water T1 mapping using radial sampling technique: comparison with conventional 2D technique.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Omata Shingo, Noda Yoshifumi, Ito Akio, Kawai Nobuyuki, Kaga Tetsuro, Ohashi Yusuke, Ido Satoshi, Kajita Kimihiro, Ueda Yu, Elhelaly Abdelazim Elsayed, Imai Hirohiko, Kato Hiroki, Matsuo Masayuki
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the clinical feasibility and measurement performance of free-breathing three-dimensional (3D) pancreatic water T1 mapping between a 3D radial 6-point DIXON Look-Locker (3D-LL) technique and a conventional breath-hold two-dimensional Look-Locker (2D-LL) technique.
METHODS: Six phantom syringes, comprising three organ-equivalent phantoms and three serial gadolinium dilution phantoms, were scanned using inversion recovery (IR), 2D-LL, and 3D-LL techniques. Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess measurement accuracy relative to IR and agreement between 2D-LL and 3D-LL, respectively. This prospective clinical study included 45 participants who underwent breath-hold 2D-LL T1 mapping and free-breathing 3D-LL pancreatic water T1 mapping. Two independent readers measured T1 values in the pancreatic head, body, and tail, and calculated whole-pancreas averages. Nonevaluable regions were recorded. T1 values were compared between the two techniques using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: Phantom experiments demonstrated very strong correlations with IR for both techniques (2D-LL, r = 0.9998; 3D-LL, r = 0.9993), and Bland-Altman analysis revealed a small positive bias of 3D-LL over 2D-LL (+15.1 ms). A clinical study revealed coverage- or motion-related regional failures that precluded T1 measurement in six participants (13%) with 2D-LL, but in none with 3D-LL. The median T1 values in the pancreatic head (P = 0.25), body (P = 0.21), tail (P = 0.25), and whole-pancreas average (P = 0.17) did not differ significantly between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: The 3D-LL technique demonstrated accurate T1 quantification in phantoms, comparable to IR and 2D-LL. Clinical data indicated that the 3D-LL technique improves pancreatic measurability by avoiding coverage- and motion-related regions that are not amenable to T1 measurement.
METHODS: Six phantom syringes, comprising three organ-equivalent phantoms and three serial gadolinium dilution phantoms, were scanned using inversion recovery (IR), 2D-LL, and 3D-LL techniques. Pearson correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman analyses were used to assess measurement accuracy relative to IR and agreement between 2D-LL and 3D-LL, respectively. This prospective clinical study included 45 participants who underwent breath-hold 2D-LL T1 mapping and free-breathing 3D-LL pancreatic water T1 mapping. Two independent readers measured T1 values in the pancreatic head, body, and tail, and calculated whole-pancreas averages. Nonevaluable regions were recorded. T1 values were compared between the two techniques using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
RESULTS: Phantom experiments demonstrated very strong correlations with IR for both techniques (2D-LL, r = 0.9998; 3D-LL, r = 0.9993), and Bland-Altman analysis revealed a small positive bias of 3D-LL over 2D-LL (+15.1 ms). A clinical study revealed coverage- or motion-related regional failures that precluded T1 measurement in six participants (13%) with 2D-LL, but in none with 3D-LL. The median T1 values in the pancreatic head (P = 0.25), body (P = 0.21), tail (P = 0.25), and whole-pancreas average (P = 0.17) did not differ significantly between the two techniques.
CONCLUSION: The 3D-LL technique demonstrated accurate T1 quantification in phantoms, comparable to IR and 2D-LL. Clinical data indicated that the 3D-LL technique improves pancreatic measurability by avoiding coverage- and motion-related regions that are not amenable to T1 measurement.