Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Paling, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Brookeman, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Paling, M. R.
Right arrow Articles by Brookeman, J. R.

Radiology, Vol 167, 695-699, Copyright © 1988 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Liver metastases: optimization of MR imaging pulse sequences at 1.0 T

MR Paling, PL Abbitt, JP Mugler and JR Brookeman
Department of Radiology, University of Virginia Medical Center, Charlottesville 22908.

Twenty patients with known liver metastases were examined with magnetic resonance imaging; four different pulse sequences were used and six different images were produced to allow comparison of pulse sequence performance at a 1.0-T field strength. Pulse sequence performance was in each case calculated by measuring contrast-to-noise ratios (C/N) comparing normal liver, metastatic tumors to liver, and background noise. All pulse sequences required approximately the same length of time for data acquisition. Short inversion time inversion-recovery (STIR) sequences yielded the greatest signal difference-to-noise ratio in 17 patients. Phase contrast images produced the greatest contrast ratio in three patients. Although short TR, short TE spin-echo sequences provided the best anatomic detail, in no patient did this sequence yield the greatest signal difference-to-noise ratio in the comparison of liver and tumor. Differences in field strength and in equipment software and hardware may account for the discrepancy between our findings and previously published data.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1988 by the Radiological Society of North America.