Ji Hye Min1,2, Young Kon Kim3, Tae Wook Kang1, Woo Kyoung Jeong1, Won Jae Lee1, Soohyun Ahn4, Na Young Hwang4. 1. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Ilwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Chungnam National University Hospital, Chungnam National University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea. 3. Department of Radiology and Center for Imaging Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, 81 Ilwon-Ro, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Korea. youngkon0707.kim@samsung.com. 4. Biostatics and Clinical Epidemiology Center, Research Institute for Future Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of multiple arterial phase (AP) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI using view-sharing of two different vendors to reduce transient severe motion (TSM) artifact in the AP. METHODS: This retrospective study included 298 patients (mean age 63 years) who underwent gadoxetic acid MRI with multiple AP from two different vendors; either triple (subcohort A, n=174) or quadruple (subcohort B, n=124) AP. 202 patients (143 vs. 59) underwent follow-up MRI with single AP. To compare multiple AP with single AP and between subcohorts, mean artifact score rated by two observers and frequency of significant artifacts were evaluated. Frequency of acquisition of late AP was also assessed. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean artifact score (p=0.086) or frequency of significant artifacts (p=0.219) between multiple AP and single AP. For the mean best score with multiple AP, subcohort B was better than subcohort A (p<0.001). Late AP was achieved more often with multiple AP (74.8 %, 98.3 %) than with single AP (64.3 %, 64.4 %). CONCLUSION: Multiple AP using different view-sharing failed to show differences in TSM artifacts in AP compared to single AP. Frequency of acquisition of late AP was higher with multiple AP. Mean best artifact score of multiple AP is different depending on view-sharing technique. KEY POINTS: • TSM artifacts were not significantly different between multiple AP and single AP. • The frequency of acquiring late AP was higher with multiple AP. • For multiple APs, TSM artifacts are different according to view-sharing technique.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the usefulness of multiple arterial phase (AP) of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI using view-sharing of two different vendors to reduce transient severe motion (TSM) artifact in the AP. METHODS: This retrospective study included 298 patients (mean age 63 years) who underwent gadoxetic acid MRI with multiple AP from two different vendors; either triple (subcohort A, n=174) or quadruple (subcohort B, n=124) AP. 202 patients (143 vs. 59) underwent follow-up MRI with single AP. To compare multiple AP with single AP and between subcohorts, mean artifact score rated by two observers and frequency of significant artifacts were evaluated. Frequency of acquisition of late AP was also assessed. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean artifact score (p=0.086) or frequency of significant artifacts (p=0.219) between multiple AP and single AP. For the mean best score with multiple AP, subcohort B was better than subcohort A (p<0.001). Late AP was achieved more often with multiple AP (74.8 %, 98.3 %) than with single AP (64.3 %, 64.4 %). CONCLUSION: Multiple AP using different view-sharing failed to show differences in TSM artifacts in AP compared to single AP. Frequency of acquisition of late AP was higher with multiple AP. Mean best artifact score of multiple AP is different depending on view-sharing technique. KEY POINTS: • TSM artifacts were not significantly different between multiple AP and single AP. • The frequency of acquiring late AP was higher with multiple AP. • For multiple APs, TSM artifacts are different according to view-sharing technique.
Authors: Gabriele M Beck; Jan De Becker; Alun C Jones; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Winfried A Willinek; Jürgen Gieseke Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-06 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: Johannes Budjan; Melissa Ong; Philipp Riffel; John N Morelli; Henrik J Michaely; Stefan O Schoenberg; Stefan Haneder Journal: Eur J Radiol Date: 2014-08-17 Impact factor: 3.528
Authors: Alexander Huppertz; Thomas Balzer; Anthony Blakeborough; Josy Breuer; Andrea Giovagnoni; Gertraud Heinz-Peer; Michael Laniado; Riccardo M Manfredi; Didier G Mathieu; Dieter Mueller; Peter Reimer; Philip J Robinson; Michael Strotzer; Matthias Taupitz; Thomas J Vogl Journal: Radiology Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sarah Poetter-Lang; Gregor O Dovjak; Alina Messner; Raphael Ambros; Stephan H Polanec; Pascal A T Baltzer; Antonia Kristic; Alexander Herold; Jacqueline C Hodge; Michael Weber; Nina Bastati; Ahmed Ba-Ssalamah Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: M-L Kromrey; D Tamada; H Johno; S Funayama; N Nagata; S Ichikawa; J-P Kühn; H Onishi; U Motosugi Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 5.315