Comparison of GRAPPA Acquisition Methods for Whole Body Diffusion Weighted Imaging
Sarah A Mason 1 , Matthew D Blackledge 1 , David J Collins 1 , Thorsten Feiweier 2 , Yiliang Thian 1 , Dow-Mu Koh 1 , and Martin O Leach 1
CR-UK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre,
Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden Hospital,
Sutton, Surrey, United Kingdom,
Sector, Siemens AG, Erlangen, Germany
We investigated how the technical differences between
ss-EPI(R=2), FLASH(R=2) and FLASH(R=3) ACS acquisition
methods visually manifest themselves in the context of
WBDWI imaging. We analyzed: geometric distortion, SNR,
overall image quality, and inter-station registration.
FLASH(R=3) had the highest geometric fidelity, fewer
image artifacts, and good station-station alignment.
These advantages are offset by a lower SNR of ~17%: this
may be partially responsible for the tendency of
FLASH(R=2) ACS data to be rated higher than FLASH(R = 3)
ACS data in terms of overall MIP quality. There was no
situation in this study in which ss-EPI outperformed
This abstract and the presentation materials are available to members only;
a login is required.