Literature DB >> 24126366

Intracranial calcifications and hemorrhages: characterization with quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Weiwei Chen1, Wenzhen Zhu, Iihami Kovanlikaya, Arzu Kovanlikaya, Tian Liu, Shuai Wang, Carlo Salustri, Yi Wang.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare gradient-echo (GRE) phase magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM) in the detection of intracranial calcifications and hemorrhages.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board. Thirty-eight patients (24 male, 14 female; mean age, 33 years ± 16 [standard deviation]) with intracranial calcifications and/or hemorrhages diagnosed on the basis of computed tomography (CT), MR imaging (interval between examinations, 1.78 days ± 1.31), and clinical information were selected. GRE and QSM images were reconstructed from the same GRE data. Two experienced neuroradiologists independently identified the calcifications and hemorrhages on the QSM and GRE phase images in two randomized sessions. Sensitivity, specificity, and interobserver agreement were computed and compared with the McNemar test and k coefficients. Calcification loads and volumes were measured to gauge intermodality correlations with CT.
RESULTS: A total of 156 lesions were detected: 62 hemorrhages, 89 calcifications, and five mixed lesions containing both hemorrhage and calcification. Most of these lesions (146 of 151 lesions, 96.7%) had a dominant sign on QSM images suggestive of a specific diagnosis of hemorrhage or calcium, whereas half of these lesions (76 of 151, 50.3%) were heterogeneous on GRE phase images and thus were difficult to characterize. Averaged over the two independent observers for detecting hemorrhages, QSM achieved a sensitivity of 89.5% and a specificity of 94.5%, which were significantly higher than those at GRE phase imaging (71% and 80%, respectively; P < .05 for both readers). In the identification of calcifications, QSM achieved a sensitivity of 80.5%, which was marginally higher than that with GRE phase imaging (71%; P = .08 and .10 for the two readers), and a specificity of 93.5%, which was significantly higher than that with GRE phase imaging (76.5%; P < .05 for both readers). QSM achieved significantly better interobserver agreements than GRE phase imaging in the differentiation of hemorrhage from calcification (κ: 0.91 vs 0.55, respectively; P < .05).
CONCLUSION: QSM is superior to GRE phase imaging in the differentiation of intracranial calcifications from hemorrhages and with regard to the sensitivity and specificity of detecting hemorrhages and the specificity of detecting calcifications. © RSNA, 2013

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24126366      PMCID: PMC4228745          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13122640

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  23 in total

1.  Artery and vein separation using susceptibility-dependent phase in contrast-enhanced MRA.

Authors:  Y Wang; Y Yu; D Li; K T Bae; J J Brown; W Lin; E M Haacke
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.813

2.  Nonlinear formulation of the magnetic field to source relationship for robust quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Tian Liu; Cynthia Wisnieff; Min Lou; Weiwei Chen; Pascal Spincemaille; Yi Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2012-04-09       Impact factor: 4.668

3.  Signal-to-noise in phase angle reconstruction: dynamic range extension using phase reference offsets.

Authors:  T E Conturo; G D Smith
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  1990-09       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  MR imaging detection of calcified intracranial lesions and differentiation from iron-laden lesions.

Authors:  S A Gronemeyer; J W Langston; S L Hanna; J W Langston
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1992 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.813

5.  McNemar chi2 test revisited: comparing sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic examinations.

Authors:  A Trajman; R R Luiz
Journal:  Scand J Clin Lab Invest       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.713

6.  On the comparison of correlated proportions for clustered data.

Authors:  N A Obuchowski
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Mechanisms responsible for the MR appearance and evolution of intracranial hemorrhage.

Authors:  J M Gomori; R I Grossman
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1988-05       Impact factor: 5.333

8.  Comparison of MRI and CT for detection of acute intracerebral hemorrhage.

Authors:  Chelsea S Kidwell; Julio A Chalela; Jeffrey L Saver; Sidney Starkman; Michael D Hill; Andrew M Demchuk; John A Butman; Nicholas Patronas; Jeffry R Alger; Lawrence L Latour; Marie L Luby; Alison E Baird; Megan C Leary; Margaret Tremwel; Bruce Ovbiagele; Andre Fredieu; Shuichi Suzuki; J Pablo Villablanca; Stephen Davis; Billy Dunn; Jason W Todd; Mustapha A Ezzeddine; Joseph Haymore; John K Lynch; Lisa Davis; Steven Warach
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Differentiation of calcification from chronic hemorrhage with corrected gradient echo phase imaging.

Authors:  R K Gupta; S B Rao; R Jain; L Pal; R Kumar; S K Venkatesh; R K Rathore
Journal:  J Comput Assist Tomogr       Date:  2001 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.826

10.  Intracranial calcification on gradient-echo phase image: depiction of diamagnetic susceptibility.

Authors:  N Yamada; S Imakita; T Sakuma; M Takamiya
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 11.105

View more
  74 in total

1.  Internal structures of the globus pallidus in patients with Parkinson's disease: evaluation with quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM).

Authors:  Satoru Ide; Shingo Kakeda; Issei Ueda; Keita Watanabe; Yu Murakami; Junji Moriya; Atsushi Ogasawara; Koichiro Futatsuya; Toru Sato; Norihiro Ohnari; Kazumasa Okada; Atsuji Matsuyama; Hitoshi Fujiwara; Masanori Hisaoka; Sadatoshi Tsuji; Tian Liu; Yi Wang; Yukunori Korogi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-11-01       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  Grading meningiomas utilizing multiparametric MRI with inclusion of susceptibility weighted imaging and quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Shun Zhang; Gloria Chia-Yi Chiang; Jacquelyn Marion Knapp; Christina M Zecca; Diana He; Rohan Ramakrishna; Rajiv S Magge; David J Pisapia; Howard Alan Fine; Apostolos John Tsiouris; Yize Zhao; Linda A Heier; Yi Wang; Ilhami Kovanlikaya
Journal:  J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-05-25       Impact factor: 3.447

3.  Streaking artifact reduction for quantitative susceptibility mapping of sources with large dynamic range.

Authors:  Hongjiang Wei; Russell Dibb; Yan Zhou; Yawen Sun; Jianrong Xu; Nian Wang; Chunlei Liu
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2015-08-27       Impact factor: 4.044

4.  Characterization of Carotid Plaque Components by Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping.

Authors:  M Azuma; K Maekawa; A Yamashita; K Yokogami; M Enzaki; Z A Khant; H Takeshima; Y Asada; Y Wang; T Hirai
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-12-26       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Nonlinear dipole inversion (NDI) enables robust quantitative susceptibility mapping (QSM).

Authors:  Daniel Polak; Itthi Chatnuntawech; Jaeyeon Yoon; Siddharth Srinivasan Iyer; Carlos Milovic; Jongho Lee; Peter Bachert; Elfar Adalsteinsson; Kawin Setsompop; Berkin Bilgic
Journal:  NMR Biomed       Date:  2020-02-20       Impact factor: 4.044

6.  Automated adaptive preconditioner for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Zhe Liu; Yan Wen; Pascal Spincemaille; Shun Zhang; Yihao Yao; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2019-08-11       Impact factor: 4.668

7.  Detection of vessel wall calcifications in vertebral arteries using susceptibility weighted imaging.

Authors:  Lisa C Adams; Sarah M Böker; Yvonne Y Bender; Eva M Fallenberg; Moritz Wagner; Thomas Liebig; Bernd Hamm; Marcus R Makowski
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 2.804

Review 8.  Gadolinium retention in the body: what we know and what we can do.

Authors:  Enrico Tedeschi; Ferdinando Caranci; Flavio Giordano; Valentina Angelini; Sirio Cocozza; Arturo Brunetti
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-03-30       Impact factor: 3.469

9.  Clinical Integration of Automated Processing for Brain Quantitative Susceptibility Mapping: Multi-Site Reproducibility and Single-Site Robustness.

Authors:  Pascal Spincemaille; Zhe Liu; Shun Zhang; Ilhami Kovanlikaya; Matteo Ippoliti; Marcus Makowski; Richard Watts; Ludovic de Rochefort; Vijay Venkatraman; Patricia Desmond; Mathieu D Santin; Stéphane Lehéricy; Brian H Kopell; Patrice Péran; Yi Wang
Journal:  J Neuroimaging       Date:  2019-08-04       Impact factor: 2.486

10.  Susceptibility mapping of the dural sinuses and other superficial veins in the brain.

Authors:  Sagar Buch; Yongsheng Chen; E Mark Haacke
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2018-10-21       Impact factor: 2.546

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.