Seung Baek Hong1, Nam Kyung Lee2, Suk Kim1, Hyeong Il Seo3, Hyun Sung Kim4, Dong Uk Kim5, Tae Un Kim6, Hwa Seong Ryu6. 1. Department of Radiology, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan, 49241, South Korea. 2. Department of Radiology, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, 179 Gudeok-ro, Seo-gu, Busan, 49241, South Korea. leenk77@hanmail.net. 3. Department of Surgery, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. 4. Department of Surgery, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, South Korea. 6. Department of Radiology, Biomedical Research Institute, Pusan National University Yangsan Hospital, and Pusan National University School of Medicine, Busan, South Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the detection rate and degree of motion artifact of the modified CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (mC-VIBE) without view-sharing and compare them with the CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE (CDT-VIBE) with view-sharing on multi-arterial gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 114 pathological-proven hepatic tumors in 114 patients with risk of HCC who underwent multi-arterial gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between June 2016 and June 2018. All patients underwent triple arterial phase imaging using the mC-VIBE without view-sharing (54 patients; 49 HCCs and 5 non-HCCs) or the CDT-VIBE with view-sharing (60 patients; 55 HCCs and 5 non-HCCs). We compared the detection rate of two sequences for HCC, with reference to LI-RADS.V.2017. We also compared the mean motion scores and proportions of transient severe motion (TSM) in two sequences. RESULT: For the examination using the mC-VIBE, the HCC-detection rate was significantly higher, compared with that using CDT-VIBE (93.9% [46/49] vs 80.0% [44/55], respectively; p = 0.047). For the examination with the mC-VIBE, mean motion scores were significantly lower compared with those of CDT-VIBE for all multi-arterial phases (1.21, 1.19, and 1.15 vs. 1.82, 1.85, and 1.84, respectively; p < 0.001 for all three comparisons). The proportion of TSM in the CDT-VIBE was significantly higher than that in the mC-VIBE (15.0% [9/60] vs 0.0% [0/54], respectively; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In multi-arterial phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, the mC-VIBE sequence without view-sharing has slightly higher HCC-detection rate and fewer motion artifacts compared with CDT-VIBE with view-sharing. KEY POINTS: • Multi-arterial phase using the mC-VIBE without view-sharing can overcome motion artifacts, resulting in providing optimal arterial phase imaging. • The HCC-detection rate is slightly higher with the mC-VIBE vs. CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE with view-sharing (CDT-VIBE). • View-sharing of CDT-VIBE in the multi-arterial phase is associated with increased frequency of TSM.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the detection rate and degree of motion artifact of the modified CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (mC-VIBE) without view-sharing and compare them with the CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE (CDT-VIBE) with view-sharing on multi-arterial gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI in the assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified 114 pathological-proven hepatic tumors in 114 patients with risk of HCC who underwent multi-arterial gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between June 2016 and June 2018. All patients underwent triple arterial phase imaging using the mC-VIBE without view-sharing (54 patients; 49 HCCs and 5 non-HCCs) or the CDT-VIBE with view-sharing (60 patients; 55 HCCs and 5 non-HCCs). We compared the detection rate of two sequences for HCC, with reference to LI-RADS.V.2017. We also compared the mean motion scores and proportions of transient severe motion (TSM) in two sequences. RESULT: For the examination using the mC-VIBE, the HCC-detection rate was significantly higher, compared with that using CDT-VIBE (93.9% [46/49] vs 80.0% [44/55], respectively; p = 0.047). For the examination with the mC-VIBE, mean motion scores were significantly lower compared with those of CDT-VIBE for all multi-arterial phases (1.21, 1.19, and 1.15 vs. 1.82, 1.85, and 1.84, respectively; p < 0.001 for all three comparisons). The proportion of TSM in the CDT-VIBE was significantly higher than that in the mC-VIBE (15.0% [9/60] vs 0.0% [0/54], respectively; p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: In multi-arterial phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI, the mC-VIBE sequence without view-sharing has slightly higher HCC-detection rate and fewer motion artifacts compared with CDT-VIBE with view-sharing. KEY POINTS: • Multi-arterial phase using the mC-VIBE without view-sharing can overcome motion artifacts, resulting in providing optimal arterial phase imaging. • The HCC-detection rate is slightly higher with the mC-VIBE vs. CAIPIRINHA-Dixon-TWIST-VIBE with view-sharing (CDT-VIBE). • View-sharing of CDT-VIBE in the multi-arterial phase is associated with increased frequency of TSM.
Entities:
Keywords:
Artifact; Detection; Gadoxetic acid; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Magnetic resonance imaging
Authors: Felix A Breuer; Martin Blaimer; Robin M Heidemann; Matthias F Mueller; Mark A Griswold; Peter M Jakob Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Martin Rohrer; Hans Bauer; Jan Mintorovitch; Martin Requardt; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Frederik L Giesel; Val Runge; Miles Kirchin; Amit Mehndiratta; Lars Gerigk; Body Corell; Carl von Gall; Hans-Ulrich Kauczor; Marco Essig Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2010 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Ulrike I Attenberger; Stefan Haneder; John N Morelli; Steffen J Diehl; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Philipp Riffel; Ulrike I Attenberger; Stephan Kannengiesser; Marcel D Nickel; Carolyn Arndt; Mathias Meyer; Stefan O Schoenberg; Henrik J Michaely Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2013-07 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Christoph J Zech; Bernhard Vos; Anders Nordell; Matthias Urich; Lennart Blomqvist; Josy Breuer; Maximilian F Reiser; Hanns-Joachim Weinmann Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 6.016
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