Z Li1, H H Hu2, J H Miller2, J P Karis3, P Cornejo2, D Wang4, J G Pipe4. 1. From the Departments of Imaging Research (Z.L., D.W., J.G.P.) lizhiqiang@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology (H.H.H., J.H.M., P.C.), Phoenix Children's Hospital, Phoenix, Arizona. 3. Radiology (J.P.K.), Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. From the Departments of Imaging Research (Z.L., D.W., J.G.P.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A challenge with the T1-weighted postcontrast Cartesian spin-echo and turbo spin-echo brain MR imaging is the presence of flow artifacts. Our aim was to develop a rapid 2D spiral spin-echo sequence for T1-weighted MR imaging with minimal flow artifacts and to compare it with a conventional Cartesian 2D turbo spin-echo sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted brain imaging was performed in 24 pediatric patients. After the administration of intravenous gadolinium contrast agent, a reference Cartesian TSE sequence with a scanning time of 2 minutes 30 seconds was performed, followed by the proposed spiral spin-echo sequence with a scanning time of 1 minutes 18 seconds, with similar spatial resolution and volumetric coverage. The results were reviewed independently and blindly by 3 neuroradiologists. Scores from a 3-point scale were assigned in 3 categories: flow artifact reduction, subjective preference, and lesion conspicuity, if any. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to evaluate the reviewer scores. The t test was used to evaluate the SNR. The Fleiss κ coefficient was calculated to examine interreader agreement. RESULTS: In 23 cases, spiral spin-echo was scored over Cartesian TSE in flow artifact reduction (P < .001). In 21 cases, spiral spin-echo was rated superior in subjective preference (P < .001). Ten patients were identified with lesions, and no statistically significant difference in lesion conspicuity was observed between the 2 sequences. There was no statistically significant difference in SNR between the 2 techniques. The Fleiss κ coefficient was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed spiral spin-echo pulse sequence provides postcontrast images with minimal flow artifacts at a faster scanning time than its Cartesian TSE counterpart.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A challenge with the T1-weighted postcontrast Cartesian spin-echo and turbo spin-echo brain MR imaging is the presence of flow artifacts. Our aim was to develop a rapid 2D spiral spin-echo sequence for T1-weighted MR imaging with minimal flow artifacts and to compare it with a conventional Cartesian 2D turbo spin-echo sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted brain imaging was performed in 24 pediatric patients. After the administration of intravenous gadolinium contrast agent, a reference Cartesian TSE sequence with a scanning time of 2 minutes 30 seconds was performed, followed by the proposed spiral spin-echo sequence with a scanning time of 1 minutes 18 seconds, with similar spatial resolution and volumetric coverage. The results were reviewed independently and blindly by 3 neuroradiologists. Scores from a 3-point scale were assigned in 3 categories: flow artifact reduction, subjective preference, and lesion conspicuity, if any. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to evaluate the reviewer scores. The t test was used to evaluate the SNR. The Fleiss κ coefficient was calculated to examine interreader agreement. RESULTS: In 23 cases, spiral spin-echo was scored over Cartesian TSE in flow artifact reduction (P < .001). In 21 cases, spiral spin-echo was rated superior in subjective preference (P < .001). Ten patients were identified with lesions, and no statistically significant difference in lesion conspicuity was observed between the 2 sequences. There was no statistically significant difference in SNR between the 2 techniques. The Fleiss κ coefficient was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed spiral spin-echo pulse sequence provides postcontrast images with minimal flow artifacts at a faster scanning time than its Cartesian TSE counterpart.
Authors: R R Price; L Axel; T Morgan; R Newman; W Perman; N Schneiders; M Selikson; M Wood; S R Thomas Journal: Med Phys Date: 1990 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 4.071
Authors: Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Rajiv Ramasawmy; Matthew C Restivo; Ipshita Bhattacharya; Burcu Basar; Daniel A Herzka; Michael S Hansen; Toby Rogers; W Patricia Bandettini; Delaney R McGuirt; Christine Mancini; David Grodzki; Rainer Schneider; Waqas Majeed; Himanshu Bhat; Hui Xue; Joel Moss; Ashkan A Malayeri; Elizabeth C Jones; Alan P Koretsky; Peter Kellman; Marcus Y Chen; Robert J Lederman; Robert S Balaban Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M B Ooi; Z Li; R K Robison; D Wang; A G Anderson; N R Zwart; A Bakhru; S Nagaraj; T Mathews; S Hey; J J Koonen; I E Dimitrov; H T Friel; Q Lu; M Obara; I Saha; H Wang; Y Wang; Y Zhao; M Temkit; H H Hu; T L Chenevert; O Togao; J A Tkach; U D Nagaraj; M C Pinho; R K Gupta; J E Small; M M Kunst; J P Karis; J B Andre; J H Miller; N K Pinter; J G Pipe Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Michael Wyss; Manoj Mannil; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Barbara Eichenberger; Carolin Reischauer; Alex Alfieri; Christoph Binkert; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Thomas Sartoretti; Elisabeth Sartoretti; Árpád Schwenk; Luuk van Smoorenburg; Manoj Mannil; André Euler; Anton S Becker; Alex Alfieri; Arash Najafi; Christoph A Binkert; Michael Wyss; Sabine Sartoretti-Schefer Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-04-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Nam G Lee; Rajiv Ramasawmy; Yongwan Lim; Adrienne E Campbell-Washburn; Krishna S Nayak Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.737