PURPOSE: To compare the usefulness of short inversion recovery (STIR) and T1-weighted, contrast-enhanced, fat-suppressed (T1W-CEFS) sequences for the evaluation of bone tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with 19 bone tumors who underwent both STIR and T1W-CEFS imaging were evaluated. The tumors were categorized in pairs as follows: bone marrow and soft-tissue components, benign and malignant tumors, and tumors with and without mineralization. The signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and tumor volume were calculated in each group. An additional qualitative analysis was performed by means of the ratings of imaging contrast. RESULTS: The mean SDNRs of all bone marrow components and bone marrow components without mineralization were significantly higher on fast STIR images than on T1W-CEFS images (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean SDNR and SNR of the other group (surrounding soft tissue components, bone marrow components with mineralization, benign and malignant lesions) between fast STIR images and T1W-CEFS images. The mean volume of the tumors was significantly higher with STIR than with the T1W-CEFS sequence (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The STIR sequence should be used instead of T1W-CEFS imaging for the evaluation of bone tumors. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
PURPOSE: To compare the usefulness of short inversion recovery (STIR) and T1-weighted, contrast-enhanced, fat-suppressed (T1W-CEFS) sequences for the evaluation of bone tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighteen patients with 19 bone tumors who underwent both STIR and T1W-CEFS imaging were evaluated. The tumors were categorized in pairs as follows: bone marrow and soft-tissue components, benign and malignant tumors, and tumors with and without mineralization. The signal difference-to-noise ratio (SDNR), signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and tumor volume were calculated in each group. An additional qualitative analysis was performed by means of the ratings of imaging contrast. RESULTS: The mean SDNRs of all bone marrow components and bone marrow components without mineralization were significantly higher on fast STIR images than on T1W-CEFS images (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean SDNR and SNR of the other group (surrounding soft tissue components, bone marrow components with mineralization, benign and malignant lesions) between fast STIR images and T1W-CEFS images. The mean volume of the tumors was significantly higher with STIR than with the T1W-CEFS sequence (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The STIR sequence should be used instead of T1W-CEFS imaging for the evaluation of bone tumors. Copyright 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Authors: Christopher Klenk; Rakhee Gawande; Vy Thao Tran; Jennifer Trinh Leung; Kevin Chi; Daniel Owen; Sandra Luna-Fineman; Kathleen M Sakamoto; Alex McMillan; Andy Quon; Heike E Daldrup-Link Journal: J Nucl Med Date: 2015-10-15 Impact factor: 10.057
Authors: Deep K Hathi; John A Engelbach; Jens Hillengass; Deborah Veis; Samuel Achilefu; Joel R Garbow; Monica Shokeen Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2019-06-17 Impact factor: 4.044