OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of the radial acquisition regime (RADAR) for acquiring head and neck MR images. METHODS: 15 healthy volunteers underwent imaging with 4 sequences [fast spin echo T2 weighted imaging (FSE-T2WI), RADAR T2 weighted imaging (RADAR-T2WI), single-shot echo planar imaging diffusion-weighted imaging (SS-EPI-DWI) and RADAR diffusion-weighted imaging (RADAR-DWI)]. Both standard images and images during periodic mouth motion were acquired. Two radiologists scored the overall image artefacts and detectability of several anatomical structures without knowledge of sequence type. For each sequence, image distortion was quantitatively compared by the anteroposterior to right-left ratio of several anatomical structures. The mean scores of artefacts and distortion of several anatomical structures were compared using the multiple comparison test. The detectabilities were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Regardless of mouth motion, RADAR-T2WI was significantly superior to FSE-T2WI in artefacts and oral-area detectability (p < 0.01), and RADAR-DWI was significantly superior to SS-EPI-DWI in terms of artefacts (p < 0.01). In terms of image distortion, RADAR-DWI was significantly superior to SS-EPI-DWI (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: RADAR-T2WI could replace FSE-T2WI as a conventional T2WI protocol for the head and neck. For the RADAR-DWI sequence, validation studies are needed. Advances in knowledge: RADAR-T2WI was superior to FSE-T2WI with regard to artefacts and detectability, and RADAR-DWI was superior in terms of artefacts compared with SS-EPI-DWI.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of the radial acquisition regime (RADAR) for acquiring head and neck MR images. METHODS: 15 healthy volunteers underwent imaging with 4 sequences [fast spin echo T2 weighted imaging (FSE-T2WI), RADAR T2 weighted imaging (RADAR-T2WI), single-shot echo planar imaging diffusion-weighted imaging (SS-EPI-DWI) and RADAR diffusion-weighted imaging (RADAR-DWI)]. Both standard images and images during periodic mouth motion were acquired. Two radiologists scored the overall image artefacts and detectability of several anatomical structures without knowledge of sequence type. For each sequence, image distortion was quantitatively compared by the anteroposterior to right-left ratio of several anatomical structures. The mean scores of artefacts and distortion of several anatomical structures were compared using the multiple comparison test. The detectabilities were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS:Regardless of mouth motion, RADAR-T2WI was significantly superior to FSE-T2WI in artefacts and oral-area detectability (p < 0.01), and RADAR-DWI was significantly superior to SS-EPI-DWI in terms of artefacts (p < 0.01). In terms of image distortion, RADAR-DWI was significantly superior to SS-EPI-DWI (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: RADAR-T2WI could replace FSE-T2WI as a conventional T2WI protocol for the head and neck. For the RADAR-DWI sequence, validation studies are needed. Advances in knowledge: RADAR-T2WI was superior to FSE-T2WI with regard to artefacts and detectability, and RADAR-DWI was superior in terms of artefacts compared with SS-EPI-DWI.
Authors: E Nyberg; G S Sandhu; J Jesberger; K A Blackham; D P Hsu; M A Griswold; J L Sunshine Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.825