Comparison of phased-array and body coils for MR imaging of liver Journal Article


Authors: Schwartz, L. H.; Panicek, D. M.; Thomson, E.; Herman, S. K.; Shah, G. V.; Heelan, R. T.; Fong, Y.; Blumgart, L. H.
Article Title: Comparison of phased-array and body coils for MR imaging of liver
Abstract: Aims and Objectives: To compare liver lesion conspicuity using torso phased-array (TPA) and body coils with two pulse sequences. Methods: Sixty patients with 125 focal hepatic lesions underwent T2-weighted fast spin-echo (T2-FSE) and fast multiplanar inversion recovery (FMPIR) imaging with a standard body coil and with a TPA coil. The first 30 patients were scanned identically in both coils with four acquisitions; the second 30 were scanned with four acquisitions in the body coil and two in the TPA coil. Results: Liver-lesion contrast-to-noise (C/N) was significantly higher for the TPA coil both with four acquisitions (P < 0.001) and with two acquisitions (P < 0.002) using FMPIR, compared to with four acquisitions in the body coil. Liver-lesion C/N for T2-FSE was equivalent in both coils. Liver-lesion C/N was significantly higher (P < 0.01) for FMPIR than T2-FSE both in the body coil and in the TPA coil. Conclusion: Liver-lesion C/N was significantly higher using the TPA coil rather than the body coil. Imaging time can be reduced by decreasing the number of acquisitions with the TPA coil.
Keywords: adult; middle aged; major clinical study; liver neoplasms; comparative study; nuclear magnetic resonance imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; signal noise ratio; liver disease; image processing, computer-assisted; neuroendocrine tumors; humans; human; male; female; priority journal; article
Journal Title: Clinical Radiology
Volume: 52
Issue: 10
ISSN: 0009-9260
Publisher: W.B. Saunders Co.  
Date Published: 1997-10-01
Start Page: 745
End Page: 749
Language: English
DOI: 10.1016/s0009-9260(97)80152-3
PUBMED: 9366532
PROVIDER: scopus
DOI/URL:
Notes: Article -- Export Date: 17 March 2017 -- Source: Scopus
Altmetric
Citation Impact
BMJ Impact Analytics
MSK Authors
  1. David M Panicek
    134 Panicek
  2. Leslie H Blumgart
    352 Blumgart
  3. Lawrence H Schwartz
    306 Schwartz
  4. Yuman Fong
    775 Fong
  5. Robert T Heelan
    140 Heelan