Ying Ding1, Sheng-Xiang Rao1, Cai-Zhong Chen1, Ren-Chen Li1, Meng-Su Zeng1. 1. Ying Ding, Sheng-Xiang Rao, Cai-Zhong Chen, Ren-Chen Li, Meng-Su Zeng, Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Institute of Medical Imaging, Shanghai 200032, China.
Abstract
AIM: To compare differences between volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) using two-point Dixon fat-water separation (Dixon-VIBE) and chemically selective fat saturation (FS-VIBE) with magnetic resonance imaging examination. METHODS: Forty-nine patients were included, who were scanned with two VIBE sequences (Dixon-VIBE and FS-VIBE) in hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetic acid administration. Subjective evaluations including sharpness of tumor, sharpness of vessels, strength and homogeneity of fat suppression, and artifacts that were scored using a 4-point scale. The liver-to-lesion contrast was also calculated and compared. RESULTS: Dixon-VIBE with water reconstruction had significantly higher subjective scores than FS-VIBE in strength and homogeneity of fat suppression (< 0.0001) but lower scores in sharpness of tumor (P < 0.0001), sharpness of vessels (P = 0.0001), and artifacts (P = 0.034). The liver-to-lesion contrast on Dixon-VIBE images was significantly lower than that on FS-VIBE (16.6% ± 9.4% vs 23.9% ± 12.1%, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dixon-VIBE provides stronger and more homogenous fat suppression than FS-VIBE, while has lower clarity of focal liver lesions in hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetic acid administration.
AIM: To compare differences between volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) using two-point Dixon fat-water separation (Dixon-VIBE) and chemically selective fat saturation (FS-VIBE) with magnetic resonance imaging examination. METHODS: Forty-nine patients were included, who were scanned with two VIBE sequences (Dixon-VIBE and FS-VIBE) in hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetic acid administration. Subjective evaluations including sharpness of tumor, sharpness of vessels, strength and homogeneity of fat suppression, and artifacts that were scored using a 4-point scale. The liver-to-lesion contrast was also calculated and compared. RESULTS: Dixon-VIBE with water reconstruction had significantly higher subjective scores than FS-VIBE in strength and homogeneity of fat suppression (< 0.0001) but lower scores in sharpness of tumor (P < 0.0001), sharpness of vessels (P = 0.0001), and artifacts (P = 0.034). The liver-to-lesion contrast on Dixon-VIBE images was significantly lower than that on FS-VIBE (16.6% ± 9.4% vs 23.9% ± 12.1%, P = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dixon-VIBE provides stronger and more homogenous fat suppression than FS-VIBE, while has lower clarity of focal liver lesions in hepatobiliary phase after gadoxetic acid administration.
Authors: N M Rofsky; V S Lee; G Laub; M A Pollack; G A Krinsky; D Thomasson; M M Ambrosino; J C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 11.105