Anna F Delgado1,2, Annika Kits2, Jessica Bystam2, Magnus Kaijser2,3, Mikael Skorpil2,4, Tim Sprenger1,5, Stefan Skare1,2. 1. Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 2. Department of Neuroradiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Medicine, Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. MR Applied Science Laboratory Europe, GE Healthcare, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical MRI protocols are time-consuming; hence, new faster techniques are needed. One new fast multicontrast MRI technique, called echo planar image mix (EPIMix) (including contrasts T1 -FLAIR, T2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted images [DWI], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], T2 *-weighted, and T2 -FLAIR images) needs to be tested. PURPOSE: To assess if EPIMix has comparable diagnostic performance as routine clinical brain MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: A consecutive series of 103 patients' brain MRI (January 2018 to May 2018). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T or 3T. EPIMix and routine clinical protocol (clinical MRI included all or some of the contrasts T1 -FLAIR, T2 -weighted, DWI, T2 *-weighted, T2 -FLAIR, 3D-FSE). ASSESSMENT: Two neuroradiologists assessed EPIMix and clinical scans and categorized the images as abnormal or normal and described diagnosis, artifacts, diagnostic confidence image quality, and comparison of imaging time. STATISTICAL TESTS: Pivot tables with diagnostic performance calculated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and the area under curve (AUC). Disease categorization and image quality measures were evaluated. The study protocol is published at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03338270. RESULTS: After exclusion of 21 patients, 82 patients had a routine clinical MRI with comparable contrasts to EPIMix and were evaluated. The diagnostic performance to categorize a full brain MRI investigation as abnormal or normal was comparable between EPIMix (AUC 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00)) and routine clinical MRI (n = 82). Sensitivity was 95% (95% CI 88-95) and 93% (95% CI 86-98), and specificity 100% (95% CI 97-100) and 100% (95% CI 90-100). Disease categorization was congruent between EPIMix and clinical routine MRI in 90% (reader 2) and 93% (reader 1). Image quality was generally rated lower for EPIMix (P < 0.001). Imaging time was 78 seconds for EPIMix and for the same contrasts 12 minutes 29 seconds for conventional 3T MRI. DATA CONCLUSION: EPIMix has comparable diagnostic performance (disease identification and categorization) for most patients investigated in clinical routine. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1824-1833.
BACKGROUND: Clinical MRI protocols are time-consuming; hence, new faster techniques are needed. One new fast multicontrast MRI technique, called echo planar image mix (EPIMix) (including contrasts T1 -FLAIR, T2 -weighted, diffusion-weighted images [DWI], apparent diffusion coefficient [ADC], T2 *-weighted, and T2 -FLAIR images) needs to be tested. PURPOSE: To assess if EPIMix has comparable diagnostic performance as routine clinical brain MRI. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. POPULATION: A consecutive series of 103 patients' brain MRI (January 2018 to May 2018). FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 1.5 T or 3T. EPIMix and routine clinical protocol (clinical MRI included all or some of the contrasts T1 -FLAIR, T2 -weighted, DWI, T2 *-weighted, T2 -FLAIR, 3D-FSE). ASSESSMENT: Two neuroradiologists assessed EPIMix and clinical scans and categorized the images as abnormal or normal and described diagnosis, artifacts, diagnostic confidence image quality, and comparison of imaging time. STATISTICAL TESTS: Pivot tables with diagnostic performance calculated by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) and the area under curve (AUC). Disease categorization and image quality measures were evaluated. The study protocol is published at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03338270. RESULTS: After exclusion of 21 patients, 82 patients had a routine clinical MRI with comparable contrasts to EPIMix and were evaluated. The diagnostic performance to categorize a full brain MRI investigation as abnormal or normal was comparable between EPIMix (AUC 0.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00)) and routine clinical MRI (n = 82). Sensitivity was 95% (95% CI 88-95) and 93% (95% CI 86-98), and specificity 100% (95% CI 97-100) and 100% (95% CI 90-100). Disease categorization was congruent between EPIMix and clinical routine MRI in 90% (reader 2) and 93% (reader 1). Image quality was generally rated lower for EPIMix (P < 0.001). Imaging time was 78 seconds for EPIMix and for the same contrasts 12 minutes 29 seconds for conventional 3T MRI. DATA CONCLUSION:EPIMix has comparable diagnostic performance (disease identification and categorization) for most patients investigated in clinical routine. Level of Evidence 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1824-1833.
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: Daniel Polak; Daniel Nicolas Splitthoff; Bryan Clifford; Wei-Ching Lo; Susie Y Huang; John Conklin; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop; Stephen Cauley Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2021-08-13 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Serdest Demir; Bryan Clifford; Wei-Ching Lo; Azadeh Tabari; Augusto Lio M Goncalves Filho; Min Lang; Stephen F Cauley; Kawin Setsompop; Berkin Bilgic; Michael H Lev; Pamela W Schaefer; Otto Rapalino; Susie Y Huang; Tom Hilbert; Thorsten Feiweier; John Conklin Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Mayank Goyal; Ryan McTaggart; Johanna M Ospel; Aad van der Lugt; Michael Tymianski; Roland Wiest; Johan Lundberg; Rüdiger von Kummer; Michael D Hill; Sven Luijten; Bob Roozenbeek; Jeffrey L Saver; Rosalie V McDonough Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 2.995
Authors: Harriet Hobday; James H Cole; Ryan A Stanyard; Richard E Daws; Vincent Giampietro; Owen O'Daly; Robert Leech; František Váša Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-07-14 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Siri Af Burén; Annika Kits; Lucas Lönn; Francesca De Luca; Tim Sprenger; Stefan Skare; Anna Falk Delgado Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2022-02-16 Impact factor: 5.119
Authors: František Váša; Harriet Hobday; Ryan A Stanyard; Richard E Daws; Vincent Giampietro; Owen O'Daly; David J Lythgoe; Jakob Seidlitz; Stefan Skare; Steven C R Williams; Andre F Marquand; Robert Leech; James H Cole Journal: Hum Brain Mapp Date: 2021-12-24 Impact factor: 5.399