Signal features of the atherosclerotic plaque at 3.0 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla: Impact on automatic classification

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance imaging Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 987 - 995
• Main Authors: Kerwin, William S., Liu, Fei, Yarnykh, Vasily, Underhill, Hunter, Oikawa, Minako, Yu, Wei, Hatsukami, Thomas S., Yuan, Chun
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company 01.10.2008
• Subjects: Aged; Algorithms; atherosclerosis; Atherosclerosis - classification; carotid artery; Carotid Stenosis - pathology; Contrast Media; Female; field strength; Gadolinium DTPA; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods; Male; MRI; segmentation; Signal Processing, Computer-Assisted
• ISSN: 1053-1807; 1522-2586
• DOI: 10.1002/jmri.21529

Purpose To investigate the impact of different field strengths on determining plaque composition with an automatic classifier. Materials and Methods We applied a previously developed automatic classifier—the morphology enhanced probabilistic plaque segmentation (MEPPS) algorithm—to images from 20 subjects scanned at both 1.5 Tesla (T) and 3T. Average areas per slice of lipid‐rich core, intraplaque hemorrhage, calcification, and fibrous tissue were recorded for each subject and field strength. Results All measurements showed close agreement at the two field strengths, with correlation coefficients of 0.91, 0.93, 0.95, and 0.93, respectively. None of these measurements showed a statistically significant difference between field strengths in the average area per slice by a paired t‐test, although calcification tended to be measured larger at 3T (P = 0.09). Conclusion Automated classification results using an identical algorithm at 1.5T and 3T produced highly similar results, suggesting that with this acquisition protocol, 3T signal characteristics of the atherosclerotic plaque are sufficiently similar to 1.5T characteristics for MEPPS to provide equivalent performance. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2008;28:987–995. © 2008 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.