BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 2D gradient-echo imaging is sensitive to T2* lesions (hemorrhages, mineralization, and vascular lesions), and susceptibility-weighted imaging is even more sensitive, but at the cost of additional scan time (SWI: 5-10 minutes; 2D gradient-echo: 2 minutes). The long acquisition time of SWI may pose challenges in motion-prone patients. We hypothesized that 2D SWI/phase unwrapped images processed from 2D gradient-echo imaging could improve T2* lesion detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 2D gradient-echo brain images of 50 consecutive pediatric patients (mean age, 8 years) acquired at 3T were retrospectively processed to generate 2D SWI/phase unwrapped images. The 2D gradient-echo and 2D SWI/phase unwrapped images were compared for various imaging parameters and were scored in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Of 50 patients, 2D gradient-echo imaging detected T2* lesions in 29 patients and had normal findings in 21 patients. 2D SWI was more sensitive than standard 2D gradient-echo imaging in detecting T2* lesions (P < .0001). 2D SWI/phase unwrapped imaging also improved delineation of normal venous structures and nonpathologic calcifications and helped distinguish calcifications from hemorrhage. A few pitfalls of 2D SWI/phase unwrapped imaging were noted, including worsened motion and dental artifacts and challenges in detecting T2* lesions adjacent to calvaria or robust deoxygenated veins. CONCLUSIONS: 2D SWI and associated phase unwrapped images processed from standard 2D gradient-echo images were more sensitive in detecting T2* lesions and delineating normal venous structures and nonpathologic mineralization, and they also helped distinguish calcification at no additional scan time. SWI processing of 2D gradient-echo images may be a useful adjunct in cases in which longer scan times of 3D SWI are difficult to implement.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: 2D gradient-echo imaging is sensitive to T2* lesions (hemorrhages, mineralization, and vascular lesions), and susceptibility-weighted imaging is even more sensitive, but at the cost of additional scan time (SWI: 5-10 minutes; 2D gradient-echo: 2 minutes). The long acquisition time of SWI may pose challenges in motion-prone patients. We hypothesized that 2D SWI/phase unwrapped images processed from 2D gradient-echo imaging could improve T2* lesion detection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 2D gradient-echo brain images of 50 consecutive pediatric patients (mean age, 8 years) acquired at 3T were retrospectively processed to generate 2D SWI/phase unwrapped images. The 2D gradient-echo and 2D SWI/phase unwrapped images were compared for various imaging parameters and were scored in a blinded fashion. RESULTS: Of 50 patients, 2D gradient-echo imaging detected T2* lesions in 29 patients and had normal findings in 21 patients. 2D SWI was more sensitive than standard 2D gradient-echo imaging in detecting T2* lesions (P < .0001). 2D SWI/phase unwrapped imaging also improved delineation of normal venous structures and nonpathologic calcifications and helped distinguish calcifications from hemorrhage. A few pitfalls of 2D SWI/phase unwrapped imaging were noted, including worsened motion and dental artifacts and challenges in detecting T2* lesions adjacent to calvaria or robust deoxygenated veins. CONCLUSIONS: 2D SWI and associated phase unwrapped images processed from standard 2D gradient-echo images were more sensitive in detecting T2* lesions and delineating normal venous structures and nonpathologic mineralization, and they also helped distinguish calcification at no additional scan time. SWI processing of 2D gradient-echo images may be a useful adjunct in cases in which longer scan times of 3D SWI are difficult to implement.
Authors: Vivek Sehgal; Zachary Delproposto; E Mark Haacke; Karen A Tong; Nathaniel Wycliffe; Daniel K Kido; Yingbiao Xu; Jaladhar Neelavalli; Djamel Haddar; Jürgen R Reichenbach Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Karen A Tong; Stephen Ashwal; Barbara A Holshouser; Lori A Shutter; Gwenael Herigault; E Mark Haacke; Daniel K Kido Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Peter A Ferrazzano; Bedda L Rosario; Stephen R Wisniewski; Nadeem I Shafi; Heather M Siefkes; Darryl K Miles; Andrew L Alexander; Michael J Bell Journal: J Neurosurg Pediatr Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Salil Soman; Jose A Bregni; Berkin Bilgic; Ursula Nemec; Audrey Fan; Zhe Liu; Robert L Barry; Jiang Du; Keith Main; Jerome Yesavage; Maheen M Adamson; Michael Moseley; Yi Wang Journal: Curr Radiol Rep Date: 2017-02-14
Authors: S Chawla; I Kister; J Wuerfel; J-C Brisset; S Liu; T Sinnecker; P Dusek; E M Haacke; F Paul; Y Ge Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Soman; Z Liu; G Kim; U Nemec; S J Holdsworth; K Main; B Lee; S Kolakowsky-Hayner; M Selim; A J Furst; P Massaband; J Yesavage; M M Adamson; P Spincemaille; M Moseley; Y Wang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-02-22 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Anna Falk Delgado; Danielle Van Westen; Markus Nilsson; Linda Knutsson; Pia C Sundgren; Elna-Marie Larsson; Alberto Falk Delgado Journal: Insights Imaging Date: 2019-08-23