Supada Prakkamakul1,2, Thomas Witzel3, Susie Huang1,3, Daniel Boulter4, Maria J Borja5, Pamela Schaefer1, Bruce Rosen3, Keith Heberlein6, Eva Ratai1,3, Gilberto Gonzalez1,3, Otto Rapalino1. 1. Neuroradiology Division, Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. 2. Department of Radiology, King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital, Thai Red Cross Society, Bangkok, Thailand. 3. Department of Radiology, Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, Charlestown, MA. 4. Neuroradiology Division, Department of Radiology, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. 5. Neuroradiology Division, Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, NY. 6. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Charlestown, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare an ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to the conventional protocol in motion-prone inpatient clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and approved by the Institutional Review Board with waived inform consent. Fifty-nine inpatients (30 males, 29 females; mean age 55.1, range 23-93 years)who underwent 3-Tesla brain MRI using ultrafast and conventional protocols, both including five sequences, were included in the study. The total scan time for five ultrafast sequences was 4 minutes 59 seconds. The ideal conventional acquisition time was 10 minutes 32 seconds but the actual acquisition took 15-20 minutes. The average scan times for ultrafast localizers, T1-weighted, T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), diffusion-weighted, T2*-weighted sequences were 14, 41, 62, 96, 80, 6 seconds, respectively. Two blinded neuroradiologists independently assessed three aspects: (1) image quality, (2) gray-white matter (GM-WM) differentiation, and (3) diagnostic concordance for the detection of six clinically relevant imaging findings. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare image quality and GM-WM scores. Interobserver reproducibility was calculated. RESULTS: The ultrafast T1-weighted sequence demonstrated significantly better image quality (P = .005) and GM-WM differentiation (P < .001) compared to the conventional sequence. There was high agreement (>85%) between both protocols for the detection of mass-like lesion, hemorrhage, diffusion restriction, WM FLAIR hyperintensities, subarachnoid FLAIR hyperintensities, and hydrocephalus. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrafast protocol achieved at least comparable image quality and high diagnostic concordance compared to the conventional protocol. This fast protocol can be a viable option to replace the conventional protocol in motion-prone inpatient clinical settings.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To compare an ultrafast brain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol to the conventional protocol in motion-prone inpatient clinical settings. METHODS: This retrospective study was HIPAA compliant and approved by the Institutional Review Board with waived inform consent. Fifty-nine inpatients (30 males, 29 females; mean age 55.1, range 23-93 years)who underwent 3-Tesla brain MRI using ultrafast and conventional protocols, both including five sequences, were included in the study. The total scan time for five ultrafast sequences was 4 minutes 59 seconds. The ideal conventional acquisition time was 10 minutes 32 seconds but the actual acquisition took 15-20 minutes. The average scan times for ultrafast localizers, T1-weighted, T2-weighted, fluid-attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR), diffusion-weighted, T2*-weighted sequences were 14, 41, 62, 96, 80, 6 seconds, respectively. Two blinded neuroradiologists independently assessed three aspects: (1) image quality, (2) gray-white matter (GM-WM) differentiation, and (3) diagnostic concordance for the detection of six clinically relevant imaging findings. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare image quality and GM-WM scores. Interobserver reproducibility was calculated. RESULTS: The ultrafast T1-weighted sequence demonstrated significantly better image quality (P = .005) and GM-WM differentiation (P < .001) compared to the conventional sequence. There was high agreement (>85%) between both protocols for the detection of mass-like lesion, hemorrhage, diffusion restriction, WM FLAIR hyperintensities, subarachnoid FLAIR hyperintensities, and hydrocephalus. CONCLUSIONS: The ultrafast protocol achieved at least comparable image quality and high diagnostic concordance compared to the conventional protocol. This fast protocol can be a viable option to replace the conventional protocol in motion-prone inpatient clinical settings.
Authors: Sen Ma; Christopher T Nguyen; Fei Han; Nan Wang; Zixin Deng; Nader Binesh; Franklin G Moser; Anthony G Christodoulou; Debiao Li Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-11-25 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Daniel Polak; Stephen Cauley; Susie Y Huang; Maria Gabriela Longo; John Conklin; Berkin Bilgic; Ned Ohringer; Esther Raithel; Peter Bachert; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-02-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: K H Ryu; H J Baek; S Skare; J I Moon; B H Choi; S E Park; J Y Ha; T B Kim; M J Hwang; T Sprenger Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-02-06 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Min Lang; Samuel Cartmell; Azadeh Tabari; Daniel Briggs; Oleg Pianykh; John Kirsch; Stephen Cauley; Wei-Ching Lo; Seretha Risacher; Augusto Goncalves Filho; Marc D Succi; Otto Rapalino; Pamela Schaefer; John Conklin; Susie Y Huang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Siri Af Burén; Annika Kits; Lucas Lönn; Francesca De Luca; Tim Sprenger; Stefan Skare; Anna Falk Delgado Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: C Ngamsombat; A L M Gonçalves Filho; M G F Longo; S F Cauley; K Setsompop; J E Kirsch; Q Tian; Q Fan; D Polak; W Liu; W-C Lo; R Gilberto González; P W Schaefer; O Rapalino; J Conklin; S Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 4.966