DIfferential Subsampling With Cartesian Ordering With Respiratory Triggering Versus Conventional Liver Acquisition With Volume Acquisition: A Multiple Reader Preference Study

The aim of this study was to compare respiratory-triggered DIfferential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (rtDISCO) and breath-held Liver Acquisition with Volume Acquisition (LAVA) image quality. In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compl...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of computer assisted tomography
Main Authors Allen, Brian C, Ehieli, Wendy L, Wildman-Tobriner, Benjamin, Chaudhry, Mohammad, Bozdogan, Erol, Janas, Gemini, Ronald, James, Bashir, Mustafa R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States 01.07.2019
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN1532-3145
0363-8715
1532-3145
DOI10.1097/RCT.0000000000000888

Cover

More Information
Summary:The aim of this study was to compare respiratory-triggered DIfferential Subsampling with Cartesian Ordering (rtDISCO) and breath-held Liver Acquisition with Volume Acquisition (LAVA) image quality. In this institutional review board-approved, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant prospective study, 25 subjects underwent T1 imaging with rtDISCO and LAVA before and after intravenous contrast. Three readers scored individual series and side-by-side comparisons for motion and noise. Eight clinical tasks were qualitatively assessed. As individual series, readers rated rtDISCO images as more degraded by motion on both precontrast (mean rtDISCO score, 2.7; LAVA, 1.6; P < 0.001) and postcontrast images (rtDISCO, 2.4; LAVA, 1.8; P < 0.001). Readers preferred LAVA images based on motion on both precontrast (mean preference, -1.2; P < 0.001) and postcontrast images (mean preference, -0.7; P < 0.001) on side-by-side assessment. There was no preference between sequences for 6 of 8 clinical tasks on postcontrast images. Readers preferred LAVA with respect to motion but not noise; there was no preference in most of the tested clinical tasks.
ISSN:1532-3145
0363-8715
1532-3145
DOI:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000888