Nabia S Ikram1, Judy Yee1,2, Stefanie Weinstein1,2, Benjamin M Yeh1,2, Carlos U Corvera3, Alexander Monto4, Thomas A Hope5,6. 1. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, M391, CA, 94143-0628, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, San Francisco Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, San Francisco Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. 5. Department of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, 505 Parnassus Avenue, M391, CA, 94143-0628, USA. thomas.hope@ucsf.edu. 6. Department of Radiology, San Francisco Veteran Affairs Medical Center, San Francisco, CA, USA. thomas.hope@ucsf.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To establish if triple-phase arterial imaging improves the detection of arterial phase hyperintense lesions based on arterial phase capture, motion artifact degradation, and lesion enhancement when compared to single-phase imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma were imaged at 3.0T. Seventy-three consecutive patients with a standard single-phase MRI and eighty-five consecutive patients were imaged using extracellular contrast with triple arterial phase MRI using three sequential accelerated acquisitions of 8 s. Arterial phase capture and image quality were qualitatively categorized. Forty single-phase and forty-four triple-phase studies contained arterially enhancing lesions > 1 cm with washout appearance. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the lesions was calculated. We compared the differences in means with Student t-tests and those in arterial phase capture with a Chi squared test with Yates correction. RESULTS: The triple-phase acquisitions captured the early or late arterial phases more frequently than did the single-phase acquisition (99% vs 86%; P value = 0.006). Triple-phase also provided greater number of patients with early or late arterial phase imaging without motion artifact (92% vs 79%, P-value = 0.05). The lesion analysis revealed increased maximum CNR in the triple-phase imaging (704.4) vs. single-phase imaging (517.2), P-value < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Triple-phase acquisition provides more robust arterial phase imaging for hepatic lesions, with increased lesion CNR, compared to standard single-phase arterial phase imaging.
PURPOSE: To establish if triple-phase arterial imaging improves the detection of arterial phase hyperintense lesions based on arterial phase capture, motion artifact degradation, and lesion enhancement when compared to single-phase imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma were imaged at 3.0T. Seventy-three consecutive patients with a standard single-phase MRI and eighty-five consecutive patients were imaged using extracellular contrast with triple arterial phase MRI using three sequential accelerated acquisitions of 8 s. Arterial phase capture and image quality were qualitatively categorized. Forty single-phase and forty-four triple-phase studies contained arterially enhancing lesions > 1 cm with washout appearance. The contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of the lesions was calculated. We compared the differences in means with Student t-tests and those in arterial phase capture with a Chi squared test with Yates correction. RESULTS: The triple-phase acquisitions captured the early or late arterial phases more frequently than did the single-phase acquisition (99% vs 86%; P value = 0.006). Triple-phase also provided greater number of patients with early or late arterial phase imaging without motion artifact (92% vs 79%, P-value = 0.05). The lesion analysis revealed increased maximum CNR in the triple-phase imaging (704.4) vs. single-phase imaging (517.2), P-value < 0.001. CONCLUSION: Triple-phase acquisition provides more robust arterial phase imaging for hepatic lesions, with increased lesion CNR, compared to standard single-phase arterial phase imaging.
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Iva Petkovska; Manojkumar Saranathan; Brian A Hargreaves; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2015-09-04 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Bernd J Wintersperger; Olaf Dietrich; Titus Lanz; Andreas Greiser; Maximilian F Reiser; Gary M Glazer; Stefan O Schoenberg Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Alex Frydrychowicz; Scott K Nagle; Sharon L D'Souza; Karl K Vigen; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2011-07-12 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Thomas A Hope; Manojkumar Saranathan; Iva Petkovska; Brian A Hargreaves; Robert J Herfkens; Shreyas S Vasanawala Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-01-31 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: T Murakami; T Kim; M Takamura; M Hori; S Takahashi; M P Federle; K Tsuda; K Osuga; S Kawata; H Nakamura; M Kudo Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sooah Kim; Thais C Mussi; Lawrence J Lee; Elizabeth V Mausner; Kyunghee C Cho; Andrew B Rosenkrantz Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marco Gatti; Marco Calandri; Laura Bergamasco; Fatemeh Darvizeh; Luigi Grazioli; Riccardo Inchingolo; Davide Ippolito; Stefano Rousset; Andrea Veltri; Paolo Fonio; Riccardo Faletti Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Kathryn J Fowler; Takeshi Yokoo; Guilherme Moura Cunha; Claude B Sirlin; Robert M Marks Journal: Hepatoma Res Date: 2020-09-01