中华放射学杂志
中華放射學雜誌
중화방사학잡지
Chinese Journal of Radiology
2013年
2期
142-146
,共5页
高佳音%张加成%杨正汉%李金凝%陈敏%周诚
高佳音%張加成%楊正漢%李金凝%陳敏%週誠
고가음%장가성%양정한%리금응%진민%주성
腹部%磁共振成像,弥散%可重复性,结果
腹部%磁共振成像,瀰散%可重複性,結果
복부%자공진성상,미산%가중복성,결과
Abdomen%Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging%Reproducibility of results
目的 探讨1.5T与3.0T及不同的1.5T设备测量健康志愿者肝、脾及胰实质ADC值的稳定性.方法 利用美国GE1.5T、德国Siemens1.5 T及荷兰Philips 3.0 T MR仪对33名健康志愿者行腹部DWI,b值为0及600s/mm2.测量肝、脾、胰(分为头、体、尾)的ADC值.比较各脏器在2台不同1.5T设备及3.0与1.5T设备所测得ADC值的差异.数据分析采用配对t检验.结果 在GE1.5T、Siemens 1.5 T与Philips 3.0 T设备上,肝的平均ADC值分别为(1.56±0.10) ×10-3、(1.67±0.15)×10-3及(1.35±0.12)× 10-3 mm2/s;脾的平均ADC值分别为(0.96±0.10)× 10-3、(0.98-±0.11) ×10-3及(0.81±0.14)×10-3 mm2/s；胰头的平均ADC值分别为(2.09 ±0.27)×10-3、(2.20±0.21)×10-3及(2.05 ±0.27)× 10-3 mm2/s;胰体的平均ADC值分别为(2.03±0.27)×10-3、(2.09±0.30)× 10-3及(1.76 ±0.25)×10-3 mm2/s;胰尾的平均ADC值分别为(1.88 ±0.28)×10-3、(1.88±0.27)×10-3及(1.56±0.27)×10-3 mm2/s.不同场强下肝、脾、胰体及胰尾的ADC值差异有统计学意义(GE1.5 T与Philips 3.0 T相比,肝:t=11.073,P＜0.01；脾:t=4.143,P＜0.01；胰体:t=4.677,P＜0.01；胰尾:t=5.356,P＜0.01；Siemens 1.5 T与Philips 3.0 T相比,肝:t=12.795,P＜0.01；脾:t=5.376,P ＜0.01；胰体:t=5.174,P＜0.01；胰尾:t=4.648,P＜0.01)；而胰头的ADC值差异无统计学意义(GE 1.5 T与Philips 3.0 T相比:t=0.340,P＞0.05；Siemens 1.5 T与Philips 3.0 T相比:t=1.349,P＞0.05).在不同的1.5T设备上,肝的平均ADC值差异有统计学意义(t=-4.563,P＜0.01)；而脾(t=-0.732,P＞0.05)、胰头(t=-0.879,P＞0.05)、胰体(t=-1.020,P＞0.05)、胰尾(t=0.054,P＞0.05)的平均ADC值差异均无统计学意义.结论 在不同场强及不同1.5T设备上,对腹部实质脏器的ADC值测量部分存在影响.
目的 探討1.5T與3.0T及不同的1.5T設備測量健康誌願者肝、脾及胰實質ADC值的穩定性.方法 利用美國GE1.5T、德國Siemens1.5 T及荷蘭Philips 3.0 T MR儀對33名健康誌願者行腹部DWI,b值為0及600s/mm2.測量肝、脾、胰(分為頭、體、尾)的ADC值.比較各髒器在2檯不同1.5T設備及3.0與1.5T設備所測得ADC值的差異.數據分析採用配對t檢驗.結果 在GE1.5T、Siemens 1.5 T與Philips 3.0 T設備上,肝的平均ADC值分彆為(1.56±0.10) ×10-3、(1.67±0.15)×10-3及(1.35±0.12)× 10-3 mm2/s;脾的平均ADC值分彆為(0.96±0.10)× 10-3、(0.98-±0.11) ×10-3及(0.81±0.14)×10-3 mm2/s；胰頭的平均ADC值分彆為(2.09 ±0.27)×10-3、(2.20±0.21)×10-3及(2.05 ±0.27)× 10-3 mm2/s;胰體的平均ADC值分彆為(2.03±0.27)×10-3、(2.09±0.30)× 10-3及(1.76 ±0.25)×10-3 mm2/s;胰尾的平均ADC值分彆為(1.88 ±0.28)×10-3、(1.88±0.27)×10-3及(1.56±0.27)×10-3 mm2/s.不同場彊下肝、脾、胰體及胰尾的ADC值差異有統計學意義(GE1.5 T與Philips 3.0 T相比,肝:t=11.073,P＜0.01；脾:t=4.143,P＜0.01；胰體:t=4.677,P＜0.01；胰尾:t=5.356,P＜0.01；Siemens 1.5 T與Philips 3.0 T相比,肝:t=12.795,P＜0.01；脾:t=5.376,P ＜0.01；胰體:t=5.174,P＜0.01；胰尾:t=4.648,P＜0.01)；而胰頭的ADC值差異無統計學意義(GE 1.5 T與Philips 3.0 T相比:t=0.340,P＞0.05；Siemens 1.5 T與Philips 3.0 T相比:t=1.349,P＞0.05).在不同的1.5T設備上,肝的平均ADC值差異有統計學意義(t=-4.563,P＜0.01)；而脾(t=-0.732,P＞0.05)、胰頭(t=-0.879,P＞0.05)、胰體(t=-1.020,P＞0.05)、胰尾(t=0.054,P＞0.05)的平均ADC值差異均無統計學意義.結論 在不同場彊及不同1.5T設備上,對腹部實質髒器的ADC值測量部分存在影響.
목적 탐토1.5T여3.0T급불동적1.5T설비측량건강지원자간、비급이실질ADC치적은정성.방법 이용미국GE1.5T、덕국Siemens1.5 T급하란Philips 3.0 T MR의대33명건강지원자행복부DWI,b치위0급600s/mm2.측량간、비、이(분위두、체、미)적ADC치.비교각장기재2태불동1.5T설비급3.0여1.5T설비소측득ADC치적차이.수거분석채용배대t검험.결과 재GE1.5T、Siemens 1.5 T여Philips 3.0 T설비상,간적평균ADC치분별위(1.56±0.10) ×10-3、(1.67±0.15)×10-3급(1.35±0.12)× 10-3 mm2/s;비적평균ADC치분별위(0.96±0.10)× 10-3、(0.98-±0.11) ×10-3급(0.81±0.14)×10-3 mm2/s；이두적평균ADC치분별위(2.09 ±0.27)×10-3、(2.20±0.21)×10-3급(2.05 ±0.27)× 10-3 mm2/s;이체적평균ADC치분별위(2.03±0.27)×10-3、(2.09±0.30)× 10-3급(1.76 ±0.25)×10-3 mm2/s;이미적평균ADC치분별위(1.88 ±0.28)×10-3、(1.88±0.27)×10-3급(1.56±0.27)×10-3 mm2/s.불동장강하간、비、이체급이미적ADC치차이유통계학의의(GE1.5 T여Philips 3.0 T상비,간:t=11.073,P＜0.01；비:t=4.143,P＜0.01；이체:t=4.677,P＜0.01；이미:t=5.356,P＜0.01；Siemens 1.5 T여Philips 3.0 T상비,간:t=12.795,P＜0.01；비:t=5.376,P ＜0.01；이체:t=5.174,P＜0.01；이미:t=4.648,P＜0.01)；이이두적ADC치차이무통계학의의(GE 1.5 T여Philips 3.0 T상비:t=0.340,P＞0.05；Siemens 1.5 T여Philips 3.0 T상비:t=1.349,P＞0.05).재불동적1.5T설비상,간적평균ADC치차이유통계학의의(t=-4.563,P＜0.01)；이비(t=-0.732,P＞0.05)、이두(t=-0.879,P＞0.05)、이체(t=-1.020,P＞0.05)、이미(t=0.054,P＞0.05)적평균ADC치차이균무통계학의의.결론 재불동장강급불동1.5T설비상,대복부실질장기적ADC치측량부분존재영향.
Objective To evaluate the reproducibility of ADC measurements at 1.5 vs 3.0 T and at 1.5 T of different scanners in liver,spleen and pancreas of healthy volunteers.Methods Abdominal DWI were performed on 33 healthy volunteers by using GE 1.5 T,Siemens 1.5 T and Philips 3.0 T MR scanners.The mean ADC values of liver,spleen,pancreatic head,body,and tail were calculated.The ADC data were analyzed by using paired-sample t tests.Results The mean ADC of liver at GE 1.5 T,Siemens 1.5T and Philips 3.0 T were (1.56 ±0.10) ×10-3,(1.67 ±0.15) ×10-3 and(1.35 ±0.12) ×10-3 mm2/s,spleen were (0.96±0.10) × 10 3,(0.98 ±0.11) ×10-3and(0.81 ±0.14) × 10-3 mm2/s,pancreatic head were (2.09 ± 0.27) × 10-3,(2.20 ± 0.21) × 10-3 and (2.05 ± 0.27) × 10-3 mm2/s,pancreatic body were (2.03 ± 0.27) × 10-3,(2.09 ± 0.30) × 10-3 and (1.76 ± 0.25) × 10-3 mm2/s,pancreatic tail were (1.88 ± 0.28) × 10-3,(1.88 ± 0.27) × 10-3 and (1.56 ± 0.27) × 10-3 mm2/s,respectively.From the aspect of different field strength MR scanners,there were significant differences in mean ADC of liver (t =11.073,P ＜0.01 in GE 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T; t =12.795,P ＜0.01 in Siemens 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T),spleen (t =4.143,P ＜ 0.01 in GE 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T; t =5.376,P ＜ 0.01 in Siemens 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T),pancreatic body (t =4.677,P ＜ 0.01 in GE 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T; t =5.174,P ＜0.01 in Siemens 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T) and tail (t =5.356,P ＜0.01 in GE 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T; t =4.648,P ＜0.01 in Siemens 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T),but there were no significant differences in mean ADC of pancreatic head (t =0.340,P ＞ 0.05 in GE 1.5 T vs Philips 3.0 T; t =1.349,P ＞ 0.05 in Siemens 1.5 T vs Philips3.0 T).From the aspect of different 1.5 T MR scanners,there were significant differences in mean ADC of liver (t =-4.563,P ＜ 0.01),but there were no significant differences in mean ADC of spleen (t =-0.732,P ＞ 0.05),pancreatic head (t =-0.879,P ＞ 0.05),body (t =-1.020,P ＞0.05) and tail (t =0.054,P ＞ 0.05).Conclusion Between 1.5 T and 3.0 T MR scanners,there were significant differences in mean ADC of liver,spleen,pancreatic body and tail,but there were no significant differences in mean ADC of pancreatic head.At different 1.5 T MR scanners,there were significant differences in mean ADC of liver,but there were no significant differences in mean ADC of spleen,pancreatic head,body and tail.
