Philips Site Yearly Performance Evaluation Philips Achieva - Gibbons 1.5T 1-Jun-08. Table of Contents

Transcription

1 Philips Site Yearly Performance Evaluation Philips Achieva Gibbons.T Jun8 Table of Contents Summary and Signature Page 2 Specific Comments 3 Site Information 4 Equipment Information 4 Table Position Accuracy 4 Magnetic Field Homogeneity 4 Slice Accuracy 4 Slice Crosstalk Soft Copy Displays 6 RF Coil Performance Evaluation Coil Inventory List 7 Body Integrated 8 Body Synergy 9 Breast Array (open) Breast Coil C 3 C3 4 Carduac Flex Synergy Medium 6 Flex Synergy Small 7 Head Quad 8 Head Coil (T/R) 9 Head N 8 ch 2 Knee 8ch 2 Knee/Foot Quad 24 Neurovascular 26 Spine Syn Coil 3 Wrist Appendix A: Magnet Homgeneity Map Appendix B: Slice / Profiles / RF Crosstalk Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis Appendix D: Explanation of RF Coil Test Format

2 MRI Equipment Evaluation Summary & Signature Page Site Name: Philips Site MRAP # Address: Survey Date: City, State, Zip Report Date: MRI Mfg: Philips Model: Gibbon Field: 6//8 6/9/8.T MRI Scientist: Moriel NessAiver, Ph.D. Signature: Equipment Evaluation Tests Pass Fail * N/A. Magnetic field homogeneity: 2. Slice position accuracy: 3. Table positioning reproducibility: 4. Slice thickness accuracy:. RF coils' performance: a. Volume QD Coils b. Phase Array Coils c. Surface Coils 6. Interslice RF interference (Crosstalk): 7. Soft Copy Display Evaluation of Site's Technologist QC Program Pass Fail * N/A. Set up and positioning accuracy: (daily) 2. Center frequency: (daily) 3. Transmitter attenuation or gain: (daily) 4. Geometric accuracy measurments: (daily). Spatial resolution measurements: (daily) 6. Low contrast detectability: (daily) 7. Head Coil (daily) 8. Body Coil (weekly) 9. Fast Spin Echo (F/T) ghosting levels: (daily). Film quality control: (weekly). Visual checklist: (weekly) *See comments page for description of any failures. Philips Site Gibbon.T 2

3 Specific Comments and Recommendations. Magnet homogeneity is very good Your soft copy (display console) looks good and there is good agreement between the screen and film. The NVA coil has one dead channel. The Body synergy coil has one channel with very poor. Although all channels of the spine coil are well balanced, the overal is about 2% lower than what I have come to expect from that coil. 6. I was unable to find the connector for the Breast Array Coil no testing was performed NO: Please be sure to read appendix D for an explanation of the new format of this document. Philips Site Gibbon.T 3

4 Site Name: Philips Site MRI Equipment Performance Evaluation Data Form Contact Title Chief Tech Phone Equipment Information MRI Manufacturer: Philips Model: Achieva SN: 32 Software: Camera Manufacturer: Agfa Model: Drystar SN: 476 Software: PACS Manufacturer: Model: SN: Software: ACR Phantom Number used: J Table Positioning Reproducibility: Table motion out/in: IsoCenter Measured Phantom Center. Comment: Out/In.3 Out/In Out/In.36. Out/In.82 Pass 2. Magnetic Field Homogeneity See appendix A for field plots. PASS Axial: Coronal: Sagittal: CF in 2: This Year CF: CF Change: cm 2 cm 2 cm GRE :, : & Flip Angle: 4, : 4 mm skip mm, : 9.3KHz, x28, 2nex..2.4 Comments: Slice Accuracy : 2mm Matrix: x (Slice # from ACR Phantom) All values in mm (ACR) (Site T) (2/8) (2/8) T() Flip Calc Target % Error 4.4% 3.8%.2%.6%.4% Comments: Philips Site Gibbon.T 4

5 4. Slice Crosstalk (RF interference) The following data were obtained using the ACR phantom slice thickness wedges to measure the slice profile of a T weighted sequences when the slice gap varies from 2% down to % (contiguous) using the Transmit/Receive head coil in the low PNS mode. As the slices get closer together it is expected that the edges of the slices will overlap causing a deterioration of the slice profile. The data shown below clearly demonstrates this effect. Once the slice gap reaches or 3% of the slice thickness, the measured slice profile begins to drop. All of the slice profiles can be seen in Appendix B. (cm 2 ) Matrix # of slices Slice Measured 4 2 x 6 Skip T Weighted Slice es (mm) Slice (mm) Philips Site Gibbon.T

6 . Soft & Hard Copy Displays Luminance Meter Make/Model: Tektronix J6 Digital Photometer Monitor Description: Philips LCD Cal Expires: 4/6/6 Which Monitor Luminance Measured: Ft. lamberts Center of Image Display Top Left Corner Top Right Corner Bottom Left Corner Bottom Right Corner MAX MIN Percent Delta Console % Y SMP OK? % delta =2% x (maxmin)/(max+center) (>3% is action limit) Minimum Brightness must be > Ft. Lamberts Display looks very good. There is good agreement between film and display. Density Ft Lamber Film Density LCD & Film Response Curve Log FtLambert.. Ideal Curve LCD Film % Density 3 Philips Site Gibbon.T 6

7 Coil and Other Hardware Inventory List Site Name Philips Site ACR Magnet # Nickname Gibbon.T Active Coil Description Manufacturer Model Rev. Mfg. Date SN Channels Body Integrated Body Synergy Philips Feb, Breast Array (open) MRI Devices 2273 Aug, 28 U Breast Coil Philips C MRI Devices? Jun, C3 Philips Jun, Cardiac Philips CRR8982/ Flex Synergy Medium Philips Jul, Flex Synergy Small Philips Jul, Head Quad Philips Aug, Head Coil (T/R) Philips Jul, 2 CRR6328 Head N 8 ch Invivo Aug, Knee 8ch MRI Devices May, 24 8 Knee/Foot Quad Med Adances Jul, Neurovascular Invivo Jan, Spine Syn Coil Philips May, Wrist Invivo 3 Sep, 26 U

8 Coil: Body Integrated Mfg.: Mfg. Date: Coil ID: 74 Phantom: 32 cm sphere Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels 3 2 T Coil Mode: QBody Analysis of Test Image Min N,6,964, NEMA % A,6,967, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 8

9 Coil: Body Synergy Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: 2//2 Coil ID: 72 Phantom: Large Body Disk Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 2 # of Channels T Coil Mode: NBody Analysis of Composite Image N A,86,8,843,838 Min NEMA % 36.9% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,42 863,77,782,79, % 2% % 68% % 3% 88% 92% Channel #2 has /4th the of what I would expect. Overall is more than 2% lower than other sites. Channel Channel 2 Composites Channel 3 Channel 4 Philips Site Gibbon.T 9

10 Coil: Breast Array (open) Mfg.: MRI Devices Mfg. Date: 8//28 Coil ID: 89 Phantom: MISSING CONNECTOR UNABLE TO ST Test Date: 6//28 Model: 2273 SN: U24223 # of Channels T Coil Mode: Min Analysis of Composite Image.. Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch Channel Channel 2 Composites Channel 3 Channel 4 Philips Site Gibbon.T

11 Coil: Breast Coil Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: Coil ID: 2 Phantom: Two 2 liter bottles Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels 3 2 T Coil Mode: Breast Analysis of Test Image Min N,3, NEMA % A,3 2, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T

12 Coil: Breast Coil Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: Coil ID: 2 Phantom: Two 2 liter bottles Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels 3 2 C Coil Mode: Breast Analysis of Test Image Min N,742,933, NEMA % A,7,943, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 2

13 Coil: C Mfg.: MRI Devices? Mfg. Date: 6//24 Coil ID: 44 Phantom: PIQT Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 897 # of Channels 3 2 C Coil Mode: C Analysis of Test Image Min N,632,98, NEMA % A,68,964, % The NEMA method does not work well due to ghosting... a common problem with this system. Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 3

14 Coil: C3 Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: 6//24 Coil ID: 48 Phantom: PIQT Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 763 # of Channels 3 2 C Coil Mode: C3 Analysis of Test Image Min N,, NEMA % A,249, % The NEMA method does not work well due to ghosting... a common problem with this system. Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 4

15 Coil: Cardiac Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: Coil ID: 49 Phantom: Body Disk Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: CRR8982/ # of Channels 3 2 T Coil Mode: Cardiac Analysis of Composite Image N A,26,26,778,776 Min NEMA % 4.4% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,67,687,76,78, % % 9% 94% 94% % 92% % 8% 8% Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Composites Channel 4 Channel Philips Site Gibbon.T

16 Coil: Flex Synergy Medium Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: 7//24 Coil ID: 47 Phantom: liter bottle Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels T Coil Mode: NFlexM Analysis of Composite Image N A,3,3,9,92 Min NEMA % 7.2% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,48, % 99% % 99% Composites Channel Channel 2 Philips Site Gibbon.T 6

17 Coil: Flex Synergy Small Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: 7//24 Coil ID: 46 Phantom: liter bottle Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 47 # of Channels T Coil Mode: N Flex S Analysis of Composite Image N A,74,7,6,9 Min NEMA %.% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,399, % % % % Composites Channel Channel 2 Philips Site Gibbon.T 7

18 Coil: Head Quad Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: 8//26 Coil ID: 4 Phantom: ACRPhantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 29 # of Channels 3 2 T Coil Mode: Head Analysis of Test Image Min N,88,99,8.2.3 NEMA % A,879,989, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 8

19 Coil: Head Coil (T/R) Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: 7//2 Coil ID: 4 Phantom: ACR Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: CRR6328 # of Channels 3 2 T Coil Mode: HeadH Analysis of Test Image Min N,98,993, NEMA % A,99,993, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 9

20 Coil: Head N 8 ch Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: 8//26 Coil ID: 43 Phantom: ACR Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 678 # of Channels T Coil Mode: NHead8 Analysis of Composite Image N A,7,7,22,24 Min NEMA % 72.7% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,38,63,2,6,,68,3, % % 83% 97% 82% 88% 89% 87% % 94% 86% % 83% 87% 93% 9% Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 2

21 Coil: Knee 8ch Mfg.: MRI Devices Mfg. Date: //24 Coil ID: 3 Phantom: Bottle Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels T 2.6 Coil Mode: NKnee8 Port A Analysis of Composite Image Min N,4, NEMA % A,4, % Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 2

22 Coil: Knee 8ch Mfg.: MRI Devices Mfg. Date: //24 Coil ID: 3 Phantom: Bottle Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels T 3.6 Coil Mode: NKnee8 Port A&B Analysis of Composite Image Min N,2, NEMA % A,, % Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch The 8 channel data was not reconstructed. However, based upon the signal uniformity, it appears that all 8 channels are well balanced. Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 22

23 Coil: Knee 8ch Mfg.: MRI Devices Mfg. Date: //24 Coil ID: 3 Phantom: Bottle Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: # of Channels T 3.6 Coil Mode: NKnee8 Port A&B Analysis of Test Image Min N pta,2, NEMA % A pta,, % N ptb,49, NEMA % A ptb,48, % Both channels produce virtually identical images. Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 23

24 Coil: Knee/Foot Quad Mfg.: Med Adances Mfg. Date: 7//2 Coil ID: Phantom: Breast Bottle in Knee, Wrist Bottle in foot Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 4697 # of Channels 3 2 T Coil Mode: KneeFoot Analysis of Test Image Min N ft,74 2,, NEMA % N kn,2,3, NEMA % A ft,76 2,3, % A kn,,3, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 24

25 Coil: Knee/Foot Quad Mfg.: Med Adances Mfg. Date: 7//2 Coil ID: Phantom: Breast Bottle in Knee, Wrist Bottle in foot Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 4697 # of Channels 3 2 S Coil Mode: KneeFoot Analysis of Test Image Min N ft,636,93, NEMA % N kn,6, NEMA % A ft,639,96, % A kn,8, % Test Images Philips Site Gibbon.T 2

26 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels T Coil Mode: a NNV6 Head,2,3,4,,6 Analysis of Composite Image N A,729,729,86,86 Min,3, NEMA % 9.2% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,73,784,649,78,724, % % 67% 69% 9% % % % 7% 73% 9% % I believe this coil actually has 8 elements. Two are combined to make channel 2 and two are combined to make channel which is why these two channels are higher than the other 4. Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Composites Channel 4 Channel Channel 6 Philips Site Gibbon.T 26

27 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels S Coil Mode: b NNV6 All Channels 8 PtA Analysis of Composite Image N A,72,72,74,74 Min NEMA % 3.9% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,63,88,79,6,76,69,723, % % 7% 8% 89% 64% % % % 92% 83% % 86% 66% 69% % This is a 6 channel coil. Here are channels 8 and the composites while attached to Port A. Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 27

28 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels S Coil Mode: c NNV6 All Channels 96 PtA Min Analysis of Composite Image. Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,667,992,4,6,63,62,84, % 89% 37% 4% 3% 46% 72% 3% % 89% 3% 3% 4% 4% % % This is a 6 channel coil. Here are channels 96 while attached to Port A. Channel 2 is DEAD Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composite Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 28

29 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels C Coil Mode: d NNV6 All Channels 8 PtA Analysis of Composite Image N A,63,63,9,9 Min NEMA % 48.% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,83,97,839,8,87,796 2,, % % 72% 73% 97% 66% % 64% % % 6% 4% 96% 47% 3% 77% This is a 6 channel coil. Here are channels 8 and the composites. Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 29

30 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels C Coil Mode: e NNV6 All Channels 96 PtA Min Analysis of Composite Image. Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,997,348,627,62,6,77,992, % 89% 37% 4% 3% 6% 48% 9% % % 33% 3% 3% 73% 34% 73% This is a 6 channel coil. Here are channels 96. Channel 2 is DEAD Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composite Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 3

31 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels S Coil Mode: f NNV6 All Channels 8 PtB Analysis of Composite Image N A,7,7,72,72 Min NEMA % 3.2% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,638,824,8,9,762,6,7, % % 77% 8% 93% 66% % 2% % 9% 8% % 88% 67% 68% 3% This is a 6 channel coil. Here are channels 8 and the composites while attached to Port B. Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 3

32 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels S Coil Mode: g NNV6 All Channels 96 PtB Min Analysis of Composite Image. Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,667,994,4,98,6,6,8, % 88% 38% 4% 3% 46% 72% 2% % 9% 36% 3% 4% 4% % 2% This is a 6 channel coil. Here are channels 96 while attached to Port B. Channel 2 is DEAD There is no difference between port A and B. Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composite Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 32

33 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels C Coil Mode: h NNV6 All Channels 8 PtB Analysis of Composite Image N A,7,7,8,82 Min NEMA % 48.2% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,8,9,838,8,88,79,997, % % 74% 7% 98% 7% 8% 7% % % 7% % 97% % 36% 84% Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composites Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 33

34 Coil: Neurovascular Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Invivo NVA Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 476 # of Channels C Coil Mode: i NNV6 All Channels 96 PtB Min Analysis of Composite Image. Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,,37,64,644,66,773,997, % 84% 37% 4% 3% 6% 47% 9% % % 34% 3% 32% 79% 36% 78% Channel Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 Composite Channel Channel 6 Channel 7 Channel 8 Philips Site Gibbon.T 34

35 Coil: Spine Syn Coil Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Body Disk Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 48 # of Channels 3 2 S Coil Mode: NSpine,2 Analysis of Composite Image N A ,89,8 Min NEMA % 38.8% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,244, % 86% % 97% The NEMA method did not produce good results due to swirling of fluid in the phantom. The overall of this coil (all channels) is roughly 2% than the last two systems I tested. Composites Channel Channel 2 Philips Site Gibbon.T 3

36 Coil: Spine Syn Coil Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Body Disk Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 48 # of Channels 3 2 S Coil Mode: NSpine 2,3 Analysis of Composite Image N A 8 8,467,47 Min NEMA % 36.2% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,494, % 98% % % Composites Channel Channel 2 Philips Site Gibbon.T 36

37 Coil: Spine Syn Coil Mfg.: Philips Mfg. Date: //27 Coil ID: Phantom: Body Disk Test Date: 6//28 Model: SN: 48 # of Channels 3 2 S Coil Mode: NSpine 4, Analysis of Composite Image N A 86 86,472,476 Min NEMA % 44.% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,2, % 99% % % Composites Channel Channel 2 Philips Site Gibbon.T 37

38 Coil: Wrist Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: 9//26 Coil ID: 73 Phantom: Wrist Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: 3 SN: U2966 # of Channels S Coil Mode: NWrist4 Analysis of Composite Image N A,4, 2, 2,2 Min NEMA % 4.% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch 2 3 4,96 848,6 9,998,974,994, % 96% 9% 99% % % 77% 98% Channel Channel 2 Composites Channel 3 Channel 4 Philips Site Gibbon.T 38

39 Coil: Wrist Mfg.: Invivo Mfg. Date: 9//26 Coil ID: 73 Phantom: Wrist Phantom Test Date: 6//28 Model: 3 SN: U2966 # of Channels C Coil Mode: NWrist4 Analysis of Composite Image N A,,,778,77 Min NEMA % 7.4% Analysis of Uncombined Images Ch ,77,7,69, % 97% 99% % % 78% % 97% Channel Channel 2 Composites Channel 3 Channel 4 Philips Site Gibbon.T 39

40 Appendix A: Magnet Homogeneity Field Maps Philips Achieva 3 central planes Measured June st, 28 Axial Right 2 Anterior 4 2 Left Axial DIAMER MIN MAX RANGE PPM MEAN STDEV Posterior Coronal Right Superior 2 Left Coronal DIAMER MIN MAX RANGE PPM MEAN STDEV Inferior Sagittal Anteriror 2 Superior 2 Posterior Sagittal DIAMER MIN MAX RANGE PPM MEAN STDEV Inferior

41 Appendix A: Magnet Homogeneity Field Maps Philips Achieva Measured June st, 28 Diameter cm cm 2cm 2cm 28cm 3cm Philips Site Gibbon.T Axial Field Plot 6// ppm cm from Isocenter (i/+s) Diameter cm cm 2cm 2cm 28cm 3cm Philips Site Gibbon.T Coronal Field Plot 6// ppm cm from Isocenter (A/+P) Diameter cm cm 2cm 2cm 28cm 3cm Philips Site Gibbon.T Sagittal Field Plot 6// ppm cm from Isocenter (L/+R)

42 Axial Field Plots F9 F F F F F F F F Isocenter H H2 2 2 H3 2 2 H4 2 2 H 2 H6 H7 H8 H9 Axial Field Plots

43 Coronal Field Plots 2 A9 2 2 A8 2 2 A A A A4 2 A3 2 2 A2 2 2 A 2 2 Isocenter P 2 P2 2 2 P3 2 P4 2 2 P 2 P6 2 P7 2 P8 2 P9 Coronal Field Plots

44 Sagittal Field Plots L9 2 L8 2 2 L L6 2 4 L L L L L 2 2 Isocenter R R R R R R R R8 2 2 R9 Sagittal Field Plots

45 Appendix B: RF Slice Profiles and Crosstalk Spin Echo Using T/R coil with Low PNS setting. / = 4/ = 7.4 KHz nex = Scan time: :3 PNS sk Upper=49.4 Lower=3.9 PNS sk. Upper=49.88 Lower=3.2 PNS sk 2. Upper=49.4 Lower= Slice =.2 Slice =.4 Slice =.2 PNS sk 2. Upper=49.6 Lower=3.27 PNS sk. Upper=49.86 Lower=2.44 PNS sk. Upper=48.82 Lower= Slice =.3 Slice =. Slice =.7 PNS sk. Upper=47.76 Lower=.78 PNS sk.2 Upper=46.83 Lower=49.99 PNS sk. Upper=4.67 Lower= Slice =4.92 Slice Slice =4.84 Slice =4.7 Slice thickness as a function of slice gap Slice

46 Philips Site Gibbon.T Coil Used: Head N 8 ch Sagittal Locator Length of phantom, end to end (mn 48± 2) 2 3 Slice Location # Resolution (.,.,.9 mm) Slice (fwhm in mm) Wedge (mm) Diameter (mm) (9±2) Slice Location # Diameter (mm) (9±2) Top Bottom Slice Location #7 4 6 Signal (mean only) Big ROI High Low 7 (>87.%) (mean ±std dev) Top Bottom Left Right Ghosting Ratio (<2.%) (no spec) Calculated value.±.7 Low Con Detectability Slice Location #8 Slice Location #9 Slice Location # Slice Location # Total # of Spokes (>=9) Slice Location # Wedge (mm) Slice Position Error = + =.4% 2.% 3.6%.% = + = 49.4 Test Date: 6/2/28 = calculated field ( /2) ( 2/2) ( 2/8) (Site T) (Site T2) ACR T ACR PD ACR T2 Site T Site T % 94.2% 94.3% 93.% 93.% 4.2 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±.8 6. ± ±.69. ± 6.4. ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±.47.%.%.%.%.%

47 Philips Site Gibbon.T parameters Test Date: 6/2/28 Coil Used: Head N 8 ch Test ID 287 Study Descrip tion Pulse (ETL) (ms) (ms) (cm) Phase Sample Ratio Number of Slices (mm) Slice (Nex) Freq Matrix Phase Matrix Band Width (khz) Scan Time (min:sec) ACR T :9 ACR PD Dual Echo :32 ACR T2 Dual Echo :32 Site T : Site T2 T() :42 Magnet ID: 44 Coil ID: 43 TestID: 287

48 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis ACR T

49 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis ACR PD

50 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis ACR T2

51 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis Site T

52 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis Site T2

53 Philips Site Gibbon.T Coil Used: Head Coil (T/R) Sagittal Locator Length of phantom, end to end (mn 48± 2) 2 3 Slice Location # Resolution (.,.,.9 mm) Slice (fwhm in mm) Wedge (mm) Diameter (mm) (9±2) Slice Location # Diameter (mm) (9±2) Top Bottom Slice Location #7 4 6 Signal (mean only) Big ROI High Low 7 (>87.%) (mean ±std dev) Top Bottom Left Right Ghosting Ratio (<2.%) (no spec) Calculated value.±.7 Low Con Detectability Slice Location #8 Slice Location #9 Slice Location # Slice Location # Total # of Spokes (>=9) Slice Location # Wedge (mm) Slice Position Error = + =.4% 2.% 3.6%.% = + = 49.3 Test Date: 6/2/28 = calculated field ( /2) ( 2/2) ( 2/8) (Site T) (Site T2) ACR T ACR PD ACR T2 Site T Site T % 9.% 9.4% 94.6% 93.7% 3.4 ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ± ±.9 2. ± ± ± ± ± ± 2..%.%.%.2%.%

54 Philips Site Gibbon.T parameters Test Date: 6/2/28 Coil Used: Head Coil (T/R) Test ID 288 Study Descrip tion Pulse (ETL) (ms) (ms) (cm) Phase Sample Ratio Number of Slices (mm) Slice (Nex) Freq Matrix Phase Matrix Band Width (khz) Scan Time (min:sec) ACR T :9 ACR PD Dual Echo :32 ACR T2 Dual Echo :32 Site T : Site T2 T() :42 Magnet ID: 44 Coil ID: 4 TestID: 288

55 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis ACR T

56 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis ACR PD

57 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis ACR T2

58 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis Site T

59 Appendix C: ACR Phantom Analysis Site T2

60 Appendix D: Explanation of RF Coil Testing Report Introduction The primary goal of RF coil testing is to establish some sort of base line for tracking coil performance over time. The most common measure is the Signal to Ratio or. In addition, we can look at overall signal uniformity, ghosting level (or better lack of ghosting) and in the case of phased array coils we look at the of each and every channel and at symmetry between channels. Unfortunately, there is no single best method for measuring. Below I explain the different methods used and the rationale for each. One needs to measure the signal in the phantom (either mean or peak or both) and then divide that by the back noise. Measuring the signal is fairly straightforward, the noise can be more problematic. The simplest method is to measure the standard deviation () in the back air. However, MRI images are the magnitude of complex data. The noise in the underlying complex data is Gaussian but it follows a Rician distribution when the magnitude is used. The true noise can be estimated by multiplying the measured by.26. During the reconstruction process, most manufacturers perform various additional operations on the images, This could include geometric distortion correction, low pass filtering of the kspace data resulting in low signal at the edge of the images, RF coil intensity correction (PURE, CLEAR, SCIC, etc), and other processing during the combination of phased array data and parallel imaging techniques. All of these methods distort the back noise making it impossible to obtain an accurate (and reproducible) estimate of the image noise in the air region. The alternative is to use a method which I shall refer to as the NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association) method. The signal in the phantom area is a sum of the proton signal and noise. Once the signal to noise ratio exceeds :, the noise in the magnitude image is effectively Gaussian. To eliminate the proton signal, you acquire an image twice and subtract them. The measured in the phantom region should now be the true times the square root of 2. When determining the using the NEMA method, calculate the mean signal of the average of the two source images then divide by.77 x the measured in the same area as the mean signal. Unfortunately, this doesn t always work. It is absolutely imperative that the RF channel scalings, both transmit and receive, be identical with both scans. Any ghosting in the system is not likely to repeat exactly for both scans and will cause a much higher. Finally, the phantom needs to be resting in place prior to the scan long enough for motion of the fluid to have died down. Depending on the size and shape of the phantom, this could take any where from to 2 minutes. One of the most common causes of ghosting is vibration from the helium coldhead. The best way to eliminate this artifact is to turn off the cold head, which will increase helium consumption. Because this vibration is periodic, the ghosting is usually of an N over 2 (N/2) nature. The affect inside the signal region of the phantom can be minimized by using a that is twice the diameter of the phantom (measured in the PE direction.) If the noise is to be measured in the air, then be sure to NOT make measurements to either side of the phantom in the PE direction. Scan parameters also significantly affect measured. For most of the testing performed in this document I used a simple Spin Echo with a of 3, a of 2 and a slice thickness of 3mm and a receiver of 28. KHz (a pixel fat/water chemical shift). The was varied depending on the size of the coil and the phantom used. All of the parameters used for each test can be found on each page immediately below the coil description.

61 Report Layout Each page of this report lists the data from a single test. The top third of the page describes the coil and phantom information, followed by the scan parameters used. The middle third contains the numbers measured and calculated results. This section will contain one table if the coil being tested is a single channel coil (i.e. quadrature or surface coils) and two tables if it is a multichannel phased array coil. The entries in the table will be described further below. The bottom section contains a few lines of comments (if necessary), a picture of the coil with the phantom as used for the testing and one or more of the images that were used for the measurements. There is usually one image for each composite image measurement and one image for each separate channel measurement. Each image shows the ROI (red line) where the mean signal was measured and two smaller ROIs (green lines) where the signal minimum and maximum was found. In the top left corner of each image is the mean signal in the large ROI. The bottom left corner contains the large ROI s area (in mm 2 ). The top right corner contains two numbers a mean and a standard deviation. If the NEMA method was used, then the top right corner will list the mean and of the large ROI (labeled ROI M and ROIsd) applied to the subtraction image. If the noise was measured in the back air the the numbers are labeled M and. Data Tables The meaning of most of the entries in the data table are should be self evident with a few exceptions. The first column in each table is labeled. In the composite analysis, this field may be empty or contain some sort of abbreviation to identify some aspect of the testing. Some possibilities are the letter N for NEMA, A for, L for Left, R for Right, C for CLEAR, NoC for No CLEAR. In the Uncombined Image table, the label usually contains the channel number or similar descriptor. The column labeled will be either or SubSig which stands for Subtracted Signal, i.e. the NEMA method. Both tables contain a column for and which are the or signal divided by the of the noise scaled by either.26 () or.77 (NEMA). Composite Image Table: The final two columns in this table are and. It can be rather difficult to compare the performance of different coils particularly if different scan parameters are used. (Of course, it s even more difficult from one scanner to another.) I have standardized most of my testing to use a spin echo with a / of 3/2msec and a thickness of 3 mm. The changes to depending on the size of the phantom used although I try to use a that is at least twice the diameter of the phantom as measured in the PE direction. For one reason or another, a change may be made in the scan parameters (either accidentally or intentionally such as turning on No Phase Wrap to eliminate aliasing, etc.). In order to make it easier to compare values I calculate a value. This value is theoretically what the would be if a of 3cm, x matrix, average, receiver of.6 KHz and slice thickness of 3mm had been used. Obviously, the final number is affected by the T/T2 values of the phantoms used as well as details of the coil and magnet field strength but it can be useful in certain situations. The value is defined by the ACR as (maxmin)/(max+min). This is most important when looking at volume coils or for evaluating the effectiveness of surface coil intensity correction algorithms (such as PURE, CLEAR or SCIC). Uncombined Image Table: This table has two columns labeled and. When analyzing multichannel coils it is important to understand the relationship between the different channels, the inherent symmetry that usually exists between channels. In a 8 channel head or 4 channel torso phased array coil, all of the channels are usually have about the same. These two columns list how the (either or ) of each channel compares to the of the channel with the maximum value.