OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility of a 3D-isotropic self-gated radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) for late-phase MRI of the liver. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 70 patients were included and underwent liver MRI at 1.5 T. Depending on the diagnosis, either Gd-EOB-DTPA (35 patients) or gadobutrol (35 patients) were administered. During late (gadobutrol) or hepatocyte-specific phase (Gd-EOB-DTPA), a radial prototype sequence was acquired and reconstructed using (1) self-gating with 40 % acceptance (rVIBE40); (2) with 100 % acceptance of the data (rVIBE100) and compared to Cartesian VIBE (cVIBE). Images were assessed qualitatively (image quality, lesion conspicuity, artefacts; 5-point Likert-scale: 5 = excellent; two independent readers) and quantitatively (coefficient-of-variation (CV); contrast-ratio) in axial and coronal reformations. RESULTS: In eight cases only rVIBE provided diagnostic image quality. Image quality of rVIBE40 was rated significantly superior (p < 0.05) in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced and coronal reformatted examinations as compared to cVIBE. Lesion conspicuity was significantly improved (p < 0.05) in coronal reformatted Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced rVIBE40 in comparison to cVIBE. CV was higher in rVIBE40 as compared to rVIBE100/cVIBE (p < 0.01). Gadobutrol-enhanced rVIBE40 and cVIBE showed higher contrast-ratios than rVIBE100 (p < 0.001), whereas no differences were found in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced examinations. CONCLUSION: Self-gated 3D-isotropic rVIBE provides significantly superior image quality compared to cVIBE, especially in multiplanar reformatted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced examinations. KEY POINTS: • Radial VIBE acquisition reduces motion artefacts. • Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced scans provide improved image quality. • Non-diagnostic liver MRI examinations may be reduced by radial k-spaces sampling.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate feasibility of a 3D-isotropic self-gated radial volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) for late-phase MRI of the liver. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 70 patients were included and underwent liver MRI at 1.5 T. Depending on the diagnosis, either Gd-EOB-DTPA (35 patients) or gadobutrol (35 patients) were administered. During late (gadobutrol) or hepatocyte-specific phase (Gd-EOB-DTPA), a radial prototype sequence was acquired and reconstructed using (1) self-gating with 40 % acceptance (rVIBE40); (2) with 100 % acceptance of the data (rVIBE100) and compared to Cartesian VIBE (cVIBE). Images were assessed qualitatively (image quality, lesion conspicuity, artefacts; 5-point Likert-scale: 5 = excellent; two independent readers) and quantitatively (coefficient-of-variation (CV); contrast-ratio) in axial and coronal reformations. RESULTS: In eight cases only rVIBE provided diagnostic image quality. Image quality of rVIBE40 was rated significantly superior (p < 0.05) in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced and coronal reformatted examinations as compared to cVIBE. Lesion conspicuity was significantly improved (p < 0.05) in coronal reformatted Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced rVIBE40 in comparison to cVIBE. CV was higher in rVIBE40 as compared to rVIBE100/cVIBE (p < 0.01). Gadobutrol-enhanced rVIBE40 and cVIBE showed higher contrast-ratios than rVIBE100 (p < 0.001), whereas no differences were found in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced examinations. CONCLUSION: Self-gated 3D-isotropic rVIBE provides significantly superior image quality compared to cVIBE, especially in multiplanar reformatted and Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced examinations. KEY POINTS: • Radial VIBE acquisition reduces motion artefacts. • Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced scans provide improved image quality. • Non-diagnostic liver MRI examinations may be reduced by radial k-spaces sampling.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artefacts; Gd-EOB-DTPA; Liver; Magnetic resonance imaging; Radial VIBE
Authors: Yiqun Xue; Jiangsheng Yu; Hyun Seon Kang; Sarah Englander; Mark A Rosen; Hee Kwon Song Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2011-06-07 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hersh Chandarana; Li Feng; Justin Ream; Annie Wang; James S Babb; Kai Tobias Block; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Saraporn Bamrungchart; Engy M Tantaway; Esin C Midia; Mateus A Hernandes; Saowanee Srirattanapong; Brian M Dale; Richard C Semelka Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-02-15 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Cristy N Gustas; Donna G Blankenbaker; Alejandro Munoz Del Rio; Carl S Winalski; Richard Kijowski Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Feiyu Chen; Tao Zhang; Joseph Y Cheng; Xinwei Shi; John M Pauly; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 4.668