Fat Suppressed Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging at 3T: Comparison of Image Quality Between Spectrally Adiabatic Iversion Recovery and the Multiecho Dixon Technique in Imaging of the Prostate
To compare the quality of fat suppression and image quality between multiecho Dixon technique (mDixon) and spectrally adiabatic iversion recovery (SPAIR) in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate.Methods
This prospective study assigned thirty consecutive patients to scanning with SPAIR technique (SPAIR protocol) and another consecutive 30 patients to scanning with mDixon technique (mDixon protocol). We calculated the contrast, signal to noise ratio (SNR), contrast to noise ratio (CNR) and the coefficient of variation between the 2 protocols. Two readers compared homogeneity of fat suppression, image noise, image contrast, and image sharpness between the two protocols.Results
The SNR, CNR, and contrast of mDixon protocol were significantly higher than those of the SPAIR protocol (SNR: 14.7 ± 4.1 vs 11.0 ± 2.6; P < 0.05; CNR: 6.3 ± 1.6 vs 0.5 ± 1.5; P < 0.01; contrast: 4.4 ± 1.4 vs 1.3 ± 0.5; P < 0.01), whereas the coefficient of variation of mDixon protocol was significantly lower than that of SPAIR protocol (34.7 ± 15.5 vs 43.7 ± 23.1, P < 0.01). In qualitative image analysis, the image scores for the homogeneity of fat suppression, image noise, and image sharpness were significantly higher with mDixon protocol than those with SPAIR protocol (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in image contrast between 2 fat suppression protocols (P > 0.05).Conclusions
In dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate, mDixon technique improved the homogeneity of fat suppression without degrade of image quality compared with SPAIR technique.