MR colonoscopy at 3.0 T: comparison with 1.5 T in vivo and a colon model

Clin Imaging. 2006 Jul-Aug;30(4):248-53. doi: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2006.02.001.

Abstract

Purpose: Retrospectively, magnetic resonance (MR) colonography images obtained from a colon model and in routine examinations of patients screened for polyps were compared in terms of whether, and to what degree, image quality improved at a higher field strength of 3.0 T compared to 1.5 T.

Materials and methods: One hundred twenty-eight MR colonography images from 40 patients, of whom 20 had each been scanned at 1.5 and 3.0 T, respectively, using a four-element phased-array torso coil, were compared. At both field strengths, imaging included T1-weighted fat-suppressed spoiled gradient-echo (T1-fs-GE), T2/T1-weighted fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition (FIESTA), and T2-weighted single-shot fast spin-echo (T2-SSFSE), with breath-hold technique. Using receiver operating characteristic analysis performed by seven readers, the three types of images from the colon model and from 20 patients each at 1.5 and 3.0 T were compared. While a time window of 20 s was allowed for picture assessment in a chance-generated succession of images on a monitor, image quality was rated with a score of 1-5 (1=very good; 5=very bad). Statistical significance was calculated with Mann-Whitney U test.

Results: At both field strengths, T2-SSFSE images received the best ratings, followed by FIESTA images (P=.001). Although, overall, the 3.0-T images obtained scores worse than those of the 1.5-T images, a better detection of phantom polyps was noted in the colon model (P=.001).

Conclusion: Although MR colonography with the breath-hold technique using the same four-element phased-array coil at 3.0 and 1.5 T does not perform better at a higher field strength in general, an improved detection of small polyps may be obtained.

Publication types

  • Comparative Study
  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Colon / pathology*
  • Colonic Polyps / diagnosis*
  • Colonoscopy / methods
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Image Enhancement / methods*
  • Magnetic Resonance Imaging / methods*
  • Male
  • Middle Aged
  • Phantoms, Imaging
  • Radiation Dosage
  • Reproducibility of Results
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Sensitivity and Specificity