TITLE:
Image Non-Uniformity Correction in 3T Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Comparison among Different Software Versions
AUTHORS:
Hirofumi Hata, Yusuke Inoue, Keiji Matsunaga, Kaoru Fujii, Toshio Tamiya, Ai Nakajima, Yuki Takato, Kazuki Hashizume
KEYWORDS:
Gd-EOB-DTPA, Non-Uniformity Correction, 3 Tesla, Software Version, Image Contrast
JOURNAL NAME:
Open Journal of Medical Imaging,
Vol.13 No.3,
September
20,
2023
ABSTRACT: 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.