OBJECTIVES: To compare radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination with k-space weighted image contrast reconstruction (r-VIBE-KWIC) to Cartesian VIBE (c-VIBE) in arterial phase dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the liver. METHODS: We reviewed 53 consecutive DCE-MRI studies performed on a 3-T unit using c-VIBE and 53 consecutive cases performed using r-VIBE-KWIC with full-frame image subset (r-VIBEfull) and sub-frame image subsets (r-VIBEsub; temporal resolution, 2.5-3 s). All arterial phase images were scored by two readers on: (1) contrast-enhancement ratio (CER) in the abdominal aorta; (2) scan timing; (3) artefacts; (4) visualisation of the common, right, and left hepatic arteries. RESULTS: Mean abdominal aortic CERs for c-VIBE, r-VIBEfull, and r-VIBEsub were 3.2, 4.3 and 6.5, respectively. There were significant differences between each group (P < 0.0001). The mean score for c-VIBE was significantly lower than that for r-VIBEfull and r-VIBEsub in all factors except for visualisation of the common hepatic artery (P < 0.05). The mean score of all factors except for scan timing for r-VIBEsub was not significantly different from that for r-VIBEfull. CONCLUSIONS: Radial VIBE-KWIC provides higher image quality than c-VIBE, and r-VIBEsub features high temporal resolution without image degradation in arterial phase DCE-MRI. KEY POINTS: Radial VIBE-KWIC minimised artefact and produced high-quality and high-temporal-resolution images. Maximum abdominal aortic enhancement was observed on sub-frame images of r-VIBE-KWIC. Using r-VIBE-KWIC, optimal arterial phase images were obtained in over 90 %. Using r-VIBE-KWIC, visualisation of the hepatic arteries was improved. A two-reader study revealed r-VIBE-KWIC's advantages over Cartesian VIBE.
OBJECTIVES: To compare radial volumetric imaging breath-hold examination with k-space weighted image contrast reconstruction (r-VIBE-KWIC) to Cartesian VIBE (c-VIBE) in arterial phase dynamic gadoxetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA)-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) of the liver. METHODS: We reviewed 53 consecutive DCE-MRI studies performed on a 3-T unit using c-VIBE and 53 consecutive cases performed using r-VIBE-KWIC with full-frame image subset (r-VIBEfull) and sub-frame image subsets (r-VIBEsub; temporal resolution, 2.5-3 s). All arterial phase images were scored by two readers on: (1) contrast-enhancement ratio (CER) in the abdominal aorta; (2) scan timing; (3) artefacts; (4) visualisation of the common, right, and left hepatic arteries. RESULTS: Mean abdominal aortic CERs for c-VIBE, r-VIBEfull, and r-VIBEsub were 3.2, 4.3 and 6.5, respectively. There were significant differences between each group (P < 0.0001). The mean score for c-VIBE was significantly lower than that for r-VIBEfull and r-VIBEsub in all factors except for visualisation of the common hepatic artery (P < 0.05). The mean score of all factors except for scan timing for r-VIBEsub was not significantly different from that for r-VIBEfull. CONCLUSIONS: Radial VIBE-KWIC provides higher image quality than c-VIBE, and r-VIBEsub features high temporal resolution without image degradation in arterial phase DCE-MRI. KEY POINTS: Radial VIBE-KWIC minimised artefact and produced high-quality and high-temporal-resolution images. Maximum abdominal aortic enhancement was observed on sub-frame images of r-VIBE-KWIC. Using r-VIBE-KWIC, optimal arterial phase images were obtained in over 90 %. Using r-VIBE-KWIC, visualisation of the hepatic arteries was improved. A two-reader study revealed r-VIBE-KWIC's advantages over Cartesian VIBE.
Authors: J Petersein; A Spinazzi; A Giovagnoni; P Soyer; F Terrier; R Lencioni; C Bartolozzi; L Grazioli; A Chiesa; R Manfredi; P Marano; E L Van Persijn Van Meerten; J L Bloem; C Petre; G Marchal; A Greco; M T McNamara; A Heuck; M Reiser; M Laniado; C Claussen; H E Daldrup; E Rummeny; M A Kirchin; G Pirovano; B Hamm Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob; Robin M Heidemann; Mathias Nittka; Vladimir Jellus; Jianmin Wang; Berthold Kiefer; Axel Haase Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; Thomas Balzer; Anthony Blakeborough; Josy Breuer; Andrea Giovagnoni; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Michael Laniado; Riccardo M Manfredi; Didier G Mathieu; Dieter Mueller; Peter Reimer; Philip J Robinson; Michael Strotzer; Matthias Taupitz; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ethan K Brodsky; Eric M Bultman; Kevin M Johnson; Debra E Horng; William R Schelman; Walter F Block; Scott B Reeder Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Anum Aslam; Amita Kamath; Bradley Spieler; Mark Maschiocchi; Carl F Sabottke; Victoria Chernyak; Sara C Lewis Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-04-15
Authors: Jakob Weiss; Jana Taron; Ahmed E Othman; Robert Grimm; Matthias Kuendel; Petros Martirosian; Christer Ruff; Christina Schraml; Konstantin Nikolaou; Mike Notohamiprodjo Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas Gutzeit; Simon Matoori; Johannes M Froehlich; Constantin von Weymarn; Carolin Reischauer; Orpheus Kolokythas; Matthias Goyen; Klaus Hergan; Matthias Meissnitzer; Rosemarie Forstner; Jan D Soyka; Aleksis Doert; Dow-Mu Koh Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 5.315