Carl Glessgen1, Daniel Gallichan2, Manuela Moor1, Nicolin Hainc1,3, Christian Federau4,5. 1. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 2. Cardiff University Brain Research Imaging Centre (CUBRIC), School of Engineering, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 3. Clinic for Neuroradiology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Division of Diagnostic and Interventional Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland. federau@biomed.ee.ethz.ch. 5. Institute for Biomedical Engineering, ETH Zürich and University Zürich, Gloriastrasse 35, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland. federau@biomed.ee.ethz.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A 3D fat-navigator (3D FatNavs)-based retrospective motion correction is an elegant approach to correct for motion as it requires no additional hardware and can be acquired during existing 'dead-time' within common 3D protocols. The purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate 3D FatNavs in the work-up of brain tumors. METHODS: An MRI-based fat-excitation motion navigator incorporated into a standard MPRAGE sequence was acquired in 40 consecutive patients with (or with suspected) brain tumors, pre and post-Gadolinium injection. Each case was categorized into key anatomical landmarks, the temporal lobes, the infra-tentorial region, the basal ganglia, the bifurcations of the middle cerebral artery, and the A2 segment of the anterior cerebral artery. First, the severity of motion in the non-corrected MPRAGE was assessed for each landmark, using a 5-point score from 0 (no artifacts) to 4 (non-diagnostic). Second, the improvement in image quality in each pair and for each landmark was assessed blindly using a 4-point score from 0 (identical) to 3 (strong correction). RESULTS: The mean image improvement score throughout the datasets was 0.54. Uncorrected cases with light and no artifacts displayed scores of 0.50 and 0.13, respectively, while cases with moderate artifacts, severe artifacts, and non-diagnostic image quality revealed a mean score of 1.17, 2.25, and 1.38, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fat-navigator-based retrospective motion correction significantly improved MPRAGE image quality in restless patients during MRI acquisition. There was no loss of image quality in patients with little or no motion, and improvements were consistent in patients who moved more.
PURPOSE: A 3D fat-navigator (3D FatNavs)-based retrospective motion correction is an elegant approach to correct for motion as it requires no additional hardware and can be acquired during existing 'dead-time' within common 3D protocols. The purpose of this study was to clinically evaluate 3D FatNavs in the work-up of brain tumors. METHODS: An MRI-based fat-excitation motion navigator incorporated into a standard MPRAGE sequence was acquired in 40 consecutive patients with (or with suspected) brain tumors, pre and post-Gadolinium injection. Each case was categorized into key anatomical landmarks, the temporal lobes, the infra-tentorial region, the basal ganglia, the bifurcations of the middle cerebral artery, and the A2 segment of the anterior cerebral artery. First, the severity of motion in the non-corrected MPRAGE was assessed for each landmark, using a 5-point score from 0 (no artifacts) to 4 (non-diagnostic). Second, the improvement in image quality in each pair and for each landmark was assessed blindly using a 4-point score from 0 (identical) to 3 (strong correction). RESULTS: The mean image improvement score throughout the datasets was 0.54. Uncorrected cases with light and no artifacts displayed scores of 0.50 and 0.13, respectively, while cases with moderate artifacts, severe artifacts, and non-diagnostic image quality revealed a mean score of 1.17, 2.25, and 1.38, respectively. CONCLUSION: Fat-navigator-based retrospective motion correction significantly improved MPRAGE image quality in restless patients during MRI acquisition. There was no loss of image quality in patients with little or no motion, and improvements were consistent in patients who moved more.
Authors: Jessica Schulz; Thomas Siegert; Enrico Reimer; Christian Labadie; Julian Maclaren; Michael Herbst; Maxim Zaitsev; Robert Turner Journal: MAGMA Date: 2012-06-13 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Peter Kochunov; Jack L Lancaster; David C Glahn; David Purdy; Angela R Laird; Feng Gao; Peter Fox Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 5.038
Authors: Nathan White; Cooper Roddey; Ajit Shankaranarayanan; Eric Han; Dan Rettmann; Juan Santos; Josh Kuperman; Anders Dale Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Jalal B Andre; Brian W Bresnahan; Mahmud Mossa-Basha; Michael N Hoff; C Patrick Smith; Yoshimi Anzai; Wendy A Cohen Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2015-05-09 Impact factor: 5.532