Premium
Uniform prostate imaging and spectroscopy at 7 T: comparison between a microstrip array and an endorectal coil
Author(s) -
van den Bergen Bob,
Klomp Dennis W.J.,
Raaijmakers Alexander J.E.,
de Castro Catalina Arteaga,
Boer Vincent O.,
Kroeze Hugo,
Luijten Peter R.,
Lagendijk Jan J.W.,
van den Berg Cornelis A. T.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
nmr in biomedicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.278
H-Index - 114
eISSN - 1099-1492
pISSN - 0952-3480
DOI - 10.1002/nbm.1599
Subject(s) - electromagnetic coil , specific absorption rate , prostate , microstrip , adiabatic process , radiofrequency coil , nuclear magnetic resonance , materials science , pulse (music) , optics , nuclear medicine , physics , computer science , medicine , telecommunications , antenna (radio) , quantum mechanics , cancer , detector , thermodynamics
An endorectal coil and an eight‐element microstrip array were compared for prostate imaging at 7 T. An extensive radiofrequency safety assessment was performed with the use of finite difference time domain simulations to determine safe scan parameters. These simulations showed that the endorectal coil can deliver substantially more B 1 +to the prostate than can the microstrip array within the specific absorption rate safety guidelines. However, the B 1 +field of the endorectal coil is very inhomogeneous, which makes the use of adiabatic pulses compulsory for T 1 ‐ or T 2 ‐weighted imaging. As a consequence, a full prostate examination is only possible in a feasible amount of time when the microstrip array is used for T 1 ‐ and T 2 ‐weighted imaging, whereas the endorectal coil is required for spectroscopic imaging. The pulse parameters were optimised within the specific absorption rate guidelines and thereafter used to provide a good illustration of the possibilities of prostate imaging at 7 T. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.