Comparison of compressed sensing and controlled aliasing in parallel imaging acceleration for 3D magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy preparation.
3D SPACE
CAIPIRINHA
Compressed sensing
Magnetic resonance imaging
Radiotherapy
Signal-to-noise ratio
Journal
Physics and imaging in radiation oncology
ISSN: 2405-6316
Titre abrégé: Phys Imaging Radiat Oncol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101704276
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
11
01
2022
revised:
09
06
2022
accepted:
20
06
2022
entrez:
5
7
2022
pubmed:
6
7
2022
medline:
6
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for radiotherapy is often based on 3D acquisitions, but suffers from low signal-to-noise ratio due to immobilization device and flexible coil use. The aim of this study was to investigate if Compressed Sensing (CS) improves image quality for 3D Turbo Spin Echo acquisitions compared with Controlled Aliasing k-space-based parallel imaging in equivalent acquisition time for intracranial T1, T2-Fluid-Attenuated Inversion Recovery (FLAIR) and pelvic T2 imaging. Qualitative ratings suffered from large inter-rater variability. CS-T1 brain MRI was superior numerically and qualitatively. CS-T2-FLAIR brain MRI was numerically superior, but rater equivalent. CS-T2 pelvic MRI was equivalent without gain.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35789969
doi: 10.1016/j.phro.2022.06.008
pii: S2405-6316(22)00056-2
pmc: PMC9249804
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
44-47Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society of Radiotherapy & Oncology.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Références
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2007 Aug;26(2):375-85
pubmed: 17622966
Crit Rev Biomed Eng. 2013;41(3):183-204
pubmed: 24579643
Adv Radiat Oncol. 2021 Sep 09;7(1):100799
pubmed: 34765805
Comput Med Imaging Graph. 2019 Oct;77:101647
pubmed: 31493703
Med Phys. 2021 Jul;48(7):e636-e670
pubmed: 33386620
Eur J Radiol. 2021 Sep;142:109873
pubmed: 34371309
Invest Radiol. 2013 Sep;48(9):638-45
pubmed: 23538890
Insights Imaging. 2018 Dec;9(6):1107-1115
pubmed: 30411279
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
J Magn Reson Imaging. 2014 Apr;39(4):745-67
pubmed: 24399498
Magn Reson Med. 2009 Dec;62(6):1574-84
pubmed: 19785017
Magn Reson Med. 2007 Dec;58(6):1182-95
pubmed: 17969013
Med Phys. 2017 Jul;44(7):e43-e76
pubmed: 28376237
Phys Med. 2021 Oct;90:150-157
pubmed: 34662818
Magn Reson Med. 2014 Feb;71(2):645-60
pubmed: 23508781
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Mar;39(3):454-458
pubmed: 29348137
Br J Radiol. 2017 Jun;90(1074):20160834
pubmed: 28375660
Br J Radiol. 2015;88(1056):20150487
pubmed: 26402216
Magn Reson Med. 2005 Mar;53(3):684-91
pubmed: 15723404
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004 May 1;59(1):300-12
pubmed: 15093927
Magn Reson Med. 2021 Nov;86(5):2837-2852
pubmed: 34240753
Phys Med Biol. 2018 Apr 19;63(8):085011
pubmed: 29583134
Magn Reson Med. 2006 Mar;55(3):549-56
pubmed: 16408271
Phys Med Biol. 2020 Apr 02;65(7):075002
pubmed: 32053808
Med Phys. 2021 Jun;48(6):3003-3010
pubmed: 33772814
Eur J Radiol. 2019 Nov;120:108667
pubmed: 31550639
Magn Reson Med. 2001 Oct;46(4):638-51
pubmed: 11590639
Phys Med Biol. 2007 Apr 7;52(7):R15-55
pubmed: 17374908