Nieun Seo1,2, Seong J Park3, Bohyun Kim4, Chang K Lee1, Jimi Huh1, Jeong K Kim1, Seung S Lee1, In S Kim5, Dominik Nickel6, Kyung W Kim1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. 3 Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. 4 Department of Radiology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea. 5. 5 Siemens Healthcare Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 6. 6 MR Application Predevelopment, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibilities of controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration with volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (CAIPIRINHA-VIBE), radial acquisition of VIBE (Radial-VIBE) with k-space-weighted image contrast (KWIC) reconstruction (KWIC-Radial-VIBE) and conventional-VIBE (c-VIBE) for free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI of the abdomen. METHODS: 23 prospectively enrolled patients underwent DCE-MRI of the abdomen with CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (n = 10), KWIC-Radial-VIBE (n = 6) or c-VIBE (n = 7). Qualitative image quality of the DCE-MR images and perfusion maps was independently scored by two abdominal radiologists using a 5-point scale (from 1, uninterpretable, to 5, very good). For quantitative analysis, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver and goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the time-intensity curve were measured. RESULTS: In the three tested sequences, DCE-MRI had good temporal (5 s) and spatial resolution (1.48 × 1.48 × 4 mm/voxel). Interobserver agreement in the qualitative analysis was good (ĸ = 0.753; 95% confidence interval, 0.610-0.895). Therefore, the mean scores were used in the data analysis. Overall image quality was comparable between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.52 ± 0.55) and KWIC-Radial-VIBE (3.72 ± 0.37; p = 1.000), and both were significantly better than c-VIBE (2.71 ± 0.34; p < 0.001). Perfusion map quality score was highest with KWIC-Radial-VIBE (4.33 ± 0.65), followed by CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.70 ± 0.73) and c-VIBE (3.14 ± 0.66), but without statistical significance between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE (p = 0.167). The SNR of the liver and GOF of the time-intensity curve did not significantly differ between the three sequences (p = 0.116 and 0.224, respectively). CONCLUSION: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better performance than c-VIBE. Both can be feasible sequences with acceptable good image quality for free-breathing DCE-MRI. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better quality of free-breathing DCE-MRIs than c-VIBE.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibilities of controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration with volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (CAIPIRINHA-VIBE), radial acquisition of VIBE (Radial-VIBE) with k-space-weighted image contrast (KWIC) reconstruction (KWIC-Radial-VIBE) and conventional-VIBE (c-VIBE) for free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI of the abdomen. METHODS: 23 prospectively enrolled patients underwent DCE-MRI of the abdomen with CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (n = 10), KWIC-Radial-VIBE (n = 6) or c-VIBE (n = 7). Qualitative image quality of the DCE-MR images and perfusion maps was independently scored by two abdominal radiologists using a 5-point scale (from 1, uninterpretable, to 5, very good). For quantitative analysis, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver and goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the time-intensity curve were measured. RESULTS: In the three tested sequences, DCE-MRI had good temporal (5 s) and spatial resolution (1.48 × 1.48 × 4 mm/voxel). Interobserver agreement in the qualitative analysis was good (ĸ = 0.753; 95% confidence interval, 0.610-0.895). Therefore, the mean scores were used in the data analysis. Overall image quality was comparable between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.52 ± 0.55) and KWIC-Radial-VIBE (3.72 ± 0.37; p = 1.000), and both were significantly better than c-VIBE (2.71 ± 0.34; p < 0.001). Perfusion map quality score was highest with KWIC-Radial-VIBE (4.33 ± 0.65), followed by CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.70 ± 0.73) and c-VIBE (3.14 ± 0.66), but without statistical significance between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE (p = 0.167). The SNR of the liver and GOF of the time-intensity curve did not significantly differ between the three sequences (p = 0.116 and 0.224, respectively). CONCLUSION: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better performance than c-VIBE. Both can be feasible sequences with acceptable good image quality for free-breathing DCE-MRI. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better quality of free-breathing DCE-MRIs than c-VIBE.
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: James P B O'Connor; Alan Jackson; Geoff J M Parker; Caleb Roberts; Gordon C Jayson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Olaf Dietrich; José G Raya; Scott B Reeder; Maximilian F Reiser; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Philip M Robson; Aaron K Grant; Ananth J Madhuranthakam; Riccardo Lattanzi; Daniel K Sodickson; Charles A McKenzie Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: P S Tofts; G Brix; D L Buckley; J L Evelhoch; E Henderson; M V Knopp; H B Larsson; T Y Lee; N A Mayr; G J Parker; R E Port; J Taylor; R M Weisskoff Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Jianbo Cao; Stephen Pickup; Cynthia Clendenin; Barbara Blouw; Hoon Choi; David Kang; Mark Rosen; Peter J O'Dwyer; Rong Zhou Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2018-12-26 Impact factor: 12.531