Waleed Brinjikji1,2, J Kevin DeMarco3, Robert Shih3, Giuseppe Lanzino1,2, Alejandro A Rabinstein4, Christopher A Hilditch5, Patrick J Nicholson5, John Huston1. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Department of Neurosurgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Walter Reed Army Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 4. Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 5. Joint Department of Medical Imaging, Toronto Western Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Carotid plaque imaging with MRI is becoming more commonplace, but practical challenges exist in performing plaque imaging with surface coils. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of a carotid plaque MRI protocol using a standard neurovascular coil (Neurovascular Coil Protocol) to a higher-resolution carotid plaque MRI using carotid surface coils (Surface Coil Protocol) in characterizing carotid plaque. STUDY TYPE: Prospective study comparing two MR techniques in plaque characterization. POPULATION: Thirty-eight consecutive carotid artery disease patients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Patients underwent 3T MRI using 1) a Neurovascular Coil Protocol including the following sequences: 3D-FSE T1 pre/postcontrast and precontrast 3D IR-FSPGR, and 2) a Surface Coil Protocol using standard multicontrast MRI sequences. ASSESSMENT: Plaque characteristics analyzed by two independent neuroradiologists included intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), lipid-rich necrotic-core (LRNC), and thin/ruptured fibrous cap (TRFC). STATISTICAL TESTS: Diagnostic performance of the Neurovascular Coil Protocol was compared to the Surface Coil Protocol reference standard using receiver-operating curves. RESULTS: For IPH, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the Neurovascular Coil Protocol were 91.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.8-97.5%), 87.0% (95% CI = 66.4-97.2%), and 0.92, respectively. For LRNC without IPH sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 73.3% (95% CI = 44.9-92.2%), 85.7% (95% CI = 67.3-96.0%), and 0.84, respectively. For TRFC, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 35.3% (95% CI = 14.2-61.7%), 97.6% (95% CI = 87.4-99.9%), and 0.66 respectively. Interobserver agreement for IPH, LRNC, and TRFC using the Neurovascular Coil Protocol were k = 0.87 (95% CI = 0.75-0.99), k = 0.54 (95% CI = 0.29-0.80), and k = 0.41 (95% CI = 0.08-0.74), respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: Our Neurovascular Coil Protocol has high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in identifying IPH and LRNC but is limited in assessment of TRFC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1264-1272.
BACKGROUND: Carotid plaque imaging with MRI is becoming more commonplace, but practical challenges exist in performing plaque imaging with surface coils. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance of a carotid plaque MRI protocol using a standard neurovascular coil (Neurovascular Coil Protocol) to a higher-resolution carotid plaque MRI using carotid surface coils (Surface Coil Protocol) in characterizing carotid plaque. STUDY TYPE: Prospective study comparing two MR techniques in plaque characterization. POPULATION: Thirty-eight consecutive carotid artery diseasepatients. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Patients underwent 3T MRI using 1) a Neurovascular Coil Protocol including the following sequences: 3D-FSE T1 pre/postcontrast and precontrast 3D IR-FSPGR, and 2) a Surface Coil Protocol using standard multicontrast MRI sequences. ASSESSMENT: Plaque characteristics analyzed by two independent neuroradiologists included intraplaque hemorrhage (IPH), lipid-rich necrotic-core (LRNC), and thin/ruptured fibrous cap (TRFC). STATISTICAL TESTS: Diagnostic performance of the Neurovascular Coil Protocol was compared to the Surface Coil Protocol reference standard using receiver-operating curves. RESULTS: For IPH, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the Neurovascular Coil Protocol were 91.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 78.8-97.5%), 87.0% (95% CI = 66.4-97.2%), and 0.92, respectively. For LRNC without IPH sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 73.3% (95% CI = 44.9-92.2%), 85.7% (95% CI = 67.3-96.0%), and 0.84, respectively. For TRFC, sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were 35.3% (95% CI = 14.2-61.7%), 97.6% (95% CI = 87.4-99.9%), and 0.66 respectively. Interobserver agreement for IPH, LRNC, and TRFC using the Neurovascular Coil Protocol were k = 0.87 (95% CI = 0.75-0.99), k = 0.54 (95% CI = 0.29-0.80), and k = 0.41 (95% CI = 0.08-0.74), respectively. DATA CONCLUSION: Our Neurovascular Coil Protocol has high sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in identifying IPH and LRNC but is limited in assessment of TRFC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2018;47:1264-1272.
Authors: John C Benson; Heidi Cheek; Marie C Aubry; Giuseppe Lanzino; John Huston Iii; Alejandro Rabinstein; Waleed Brinjikji Journal: Clin Neuroradiol Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 3.649
Authors: A S Larson; W Brinjikji; L Savastano; A A Rabinstein; L Saba; J Huston; J C Benson Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-04-22 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: Valentina Nardi; John C Benson; Anthony S Larson; Waleed Brinjikji; Luca Saba; Fredric B Meyer; Giuseppe Lanzino; Amir Lerman; Luis E Savastano Journal: Stroke Vasc Neurol Date: 2022-03-03
Authors: Yu Sakai; Vance T Lehman; Laura B Eisenmenger; Emmanuel C Obusez; G Abbas Kharal; Jiayu Xiao; Grace J Wang; Zhaoyang Fan; Brett L Cucchiara; Jae W Song Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 4.086