L N Tanenbaum1, A J Tsiouris2, A N Johnson3,4, T P Naidich5, M C DeLano6, E R Melhem7, P Quarterman8, S X Parameswaran4, A Shankaranarayanan9, M Goyen10, A S Field11. 1. From Lenox Hill Radiology (L.N.T.), RadNet Inc, New York, New York Nuromri@radnet.com. 2. Department of Radiology (A.J.T.), Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, New York. 3. Department of Technical Communication (A.N.J.), Science and Healthcare, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas. 4. Technology and Medical Innovation Organization (A.N.J., S.X.P.). 5. Department of Neuroradiology (T.P.N.), The Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, New York. 6. Division of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging (M.C.D.), Michigan State University, Advanced Radiology Services, PC, and Spectrum Health, Grand Rapids, Michigan. 7. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (E.R.M.), University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 8. Healthcare Imaging-MRI (P.Q.). 9. Healthcare Imaging-MRI Neuro Applications (A.S.). 10. Medical Affairs (M.G.), GE Healthcare, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 11. Department of Radiology (A.S.F.), University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multireader, multicase noninferiority trial of 1526 images read by 7 blinded neuroradiologists was performed with prospectively acquired synthetic and conventional brain MR imaging case-control pairs from 109 subjects (mean, 53.0 ± 18.5 years of age; range, 19-89 years of age) with neuroimaging indications. Each case included conventional T1- and T2-weighted, T1 and T2 FLAIR, and STIR and/or proton density and synthetic reconstructions from multiple-dynamic multiple-echo imaging. Images were randomized and independently assessed for diagnostic quality, morphologic legibility, radiologic findings indicative of diagnosis, and artifacts. RESULTS: Clinical MR imaging studies revealed 46 healthy and 63 pathologic cases. Overall diagnostic quality of synthetic MR images was noninferior to conventional imaging on a 5-level Likert scale (P < .001; mean synthetic-conventional, -0.335 ± 0.352; Δ = 0.5; lower limit of the 95% CI, -0.402). Legibility of synthetic and conventional morphology agreed in >95%, except in the posterior limb of the internal capsule for T1, T1 FLAIR, and proton-density views (all, >80%). Synthetic T2 FLAIR had more pronounced artifacts, including +24.1% of cases with flow artifacts and +17.6% cases with white noise artifacts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall synthetic MR imaging quality was similar to that of conventional proton-density, STIR, and T1- and T2-weighted contrast views across neurologic conditions. While artifacts were more common in synthetic T2 FLAIR, these were readily recognizable and did not mimic pathology but could necessitate additional conventional T2 FLAIR to confirm the diagnosis.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic MR imaging enables reconstruction of various image contrasts from 1 scan, reducing scan times and potentially providing novel information. This study is the first large, prospective comparison of synthetic-versus-conventional MR imaging for routine neuroimaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective multireader, multicase noninferiority trial of 1526 images read by 7 blinded neuroradiologists was performed with prospectively acquired synthetic and conventional brain MR imaging case-control pairs from 109 subjects (mean, 53.0 ± 18.5 years of age; range, 19-89 years of age) with neuroimaging indications. Each case included conventional T1- and T2-weighted, T1 and T2 FLAIR, and STIR and/or proton density and synthetic reconstructions from multiple-dynamic multiple-echo imaging. Images were randomized and independently assessed for diagnostic quality, morphologic legibility, radiologic findings indicative of diagnosis, and artifacts. RESULTS: Clinical MR imaging studies revealed 46 healthy and 63 pathologic cases. Overall diagnostic quality of synthetic MR images was noninferior to conventional imaging on a 5-level Likert scale (P < .001; mean synthetic-conventional, -0.335 ± 0.352; Δ = 0.5; lower limit of the 95% CI, -0.402). Legibility of synthetic and conventional morphology agreed in >95%, except in the posterior limb of the internal capsule for T1, T1 FLAIR, and proton-density views (all, >80%). Synthetic T2 FLAIR had more pronounced artifacts, including +24.1% of cases with flow artifacts and +17.6% cases with white noise artifacts. CONCLUSIONS: Overall synthetic MR imaging quality was similar to that of conventional proton-density, STIR, and T1- and T2-weighted contrast views across neurologic conditions. While artifacts were more common in synthetic T2 FLAIR, these were readily recognizable and did not mimic pathology but could necessitate additional conventional T2 FLAIR to confirm the diagnosis.
Authors: T Granberg; M Uppman; F Hashim; C Cananau; L E Nordin; S Shams; J Berglund; Y Forslin; P Aspelin; S Fredrikson; M Kristoffersen-Wiberg Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Marc C Mabray; Benjamin A Cohen; Javier E Villanueva-Meyer; Francisco E Valles; Ramon F Barajas; James L Rubenstein; Soonmee Cha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Jonathan I Tamir; Frank Ong; Suma Anand; Ekin Karasan; Ke Wang; Michael Lustig Journal: IEEE Signal Process Mag Date: 2020-01-17 Impact factor: 12.551
Authors: J Uthoff; F A De Stefano; K Panzer; B W Darbro; T S Sato; R Khanna; D E Quelle; D K Meyerholz; J Weimer; J C Sieren Journal: J Neuroradiol Date: 2018-06-27 Impact factor: 3.447
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: Phillip DiGiacomo; Julian Maclaren; Murat Aksoy; Elizabeth Tong; Mackenzie Carlson; Bryan Lanzman; Syed Hashmi; Ronald Watkins; Jarrett Rosenberg; Brian Burns; Timothy W Skloss; Dan Rettmann; Brian Rutt; Roland Bammer; Michael Zeineh Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-02-20 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: T Vanderhasselt; M Naeyaert; N Watté; G-J Allemeersch; S Raeymaeckers; J Dudink; J de Mey; H Raeymaekers Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: V Schmidbauer; G Dovjak; G Geisl; M Weber; M C Diogo; M S Yildirim; K Goeral; K Klebermass-Schrehof; A Berger; D Prayer; G Kasprian Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-21 Impact factor: 3.825