J Conklin1, M G F Longo2, S F Cauley2,3, K Setsompop2,3,4, R G González2, P W Schaefer2, J E Kirsch2, O Rapalino2, S Y Huang2,3,4. 1. From the Department of Radiology (J.C., M.G.F.L., S.F.C., K.S., R.G.G., P.W.S., J.E.K., O.R., S.Y.H.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts jconklin1@mgh.harvard.edu. 2. From the Department of Radiology (J.C., M.G.F.L., S.F.C., K.S., R.G.G., P.W.S., J.E.K., O.R., S.Y.H.), Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging (S.F.C., K.S., S.Y.H.), Boston, Massachusetts. 4. Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology (K.S., S.Y.H.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SWI is valuable for characterization of intracranial hemorrhage and mineralization but has long acquisition times. We compared a highly accelerated wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (CAIPI) SWI sequence with 2 commonly used alternatives, standard SWI and T2*-weighted gradient recalled-echo (T2*W GRE), for routine clinical brain imaging at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 246 consecutive adult patients were prospectively evaluated using a conventional SWI or T2*W GRE sequence and an optimized wave-CAIPI SWI sequence, which was 3-5 times faster than the standard sequence. Two blinded radiologists scored each sequence for the presence of hemorrhage, the number of microhemorrhages, and severity of motion artifacts. Wave-CAIPI SWI was then evaluated in head-to-head comparison with the conventional sequences for visualization of pathology, artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality. Forced-choice comparisons were used for all scores. Wave-CAIPI SWI was tested for superiority relative to T2*W GRE and for noninferiority relative to standard SWI using a 15% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Compared with T2*W GRE, wave-CAIPI SWI detected hemorrhages in more cases (P < .001) and detected more microhemorrhages (P < .001). Wave-CAIPI SWI was superior to T2*W GRE for visualization of pathology, artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality (all P < .001). Compared with standard SWI, wave-CAIPI SWI showed no difference in the presence or number of hemorrhages identified. Wave-CAIPI SWI was noninferior to standard SWI for the visualization of pathology (P < .001), artifacts (P < .01), and overall diagnostic quality (P < .01). Motion was less severe with wave-CAIPI SWI than with standard SWI (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Wave-CAIPI SWI provided superior visualization of pathology and overall diagnostic quality compared with T2*W GRE and was noninferior to standard SWI with reduced scan times and reduced motion artifacts.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SWI is valuable for characterization of intracranial hemorrhage and mineralization but has long acquisition times. We compared a highly accelerated wave-controlled aliasing in parallel imaging (CAIPI) SWI sequence with 2 commonly used alternatives, standard SWI and T2*-weighted gradient recalled-echo (T2*W GRE), for routine clinical brain imaging at 3T. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 246 consecutive adult patients were prospectively evaluated using a conventional SWI or T2*W GRE sequence and an optimized wave-CAIPI SWI sequence, which was 3-5 times faster than the standard sequence. Two blinded radiologists scored each sequence for the presence of hemorrhage, the number of microhemorrhages, and severity of motion artifacts. Wave-CAIPI SWI was then evaluated in head-to-head comparison with the conventional sequences for visualization of pathology, artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality. Forced-choice comparisons were used for all scores. Wave-CAIPI SWI was tested for superiority relative to T2*W GRE and for noninferiority relative to standard SWI using a 15% noninferiority margin. RESULTS: Compared with T2*W GRE, wave-CAIPI SWI detected hemorrhages in more cases (P < .001) and detected more microhemorrhages (P < .001). Wave-CAIPI SWI was superior to T2*W GRE for visualization of pathology, artifacts, and overall diagnostic quality (all P < .001). Compared with standard SWI, wave-CAIPI SWI showed no difference in the presence or number of hemorrhages identified. Wave-CAIPI SWI was noninferior to standard SWI for the visualization of pathology (P < .001), artifacts (P < .01), and overall diagnostic quality (P < .01). Motion was less severe with wave-CAIPI SWI than with standard SWI (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Wave-CAIPI SWI provided superior visualization of pathology and overall diagnostic quality compared with T2*W GRE and was noninferior to standard SWI with reduced scan times and reduced motion artifacts.
Authors: Berkin Bilgic; Luke Xie; Russell Dibb; Christian Langkammer; Aysegul Mutluay; Huihui Ye; Jonathan R Polimeni; Jean Augustinack; Chunlei Liu; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop Journal: Neuroimage Date: 2015-08-12 Impact factor: 6.556
Authors: Berkin Bilgic; Borjan A Gagoski; Stephen F Cauley; Audrey P Fan; Jonathan R Polimeni; P Ellen Grant; Lawrence L Wald; Kawin Setsompop Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-07-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: So Jung Lee; Seong Ho Park; Ah Young Kim; Suk-Kyun Yang; Sung-Cheol Yun; Seung Soo Lee; Gyoo Sik Jung; Hyun Kwon Ha Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Philipp J Schaefer; Frank P Boudghene; Hans J Brambs; Montserrat Bret-Zurita; Jose L Caniego; Richard A Coulden; Hans B Gehl; Renate Hammerstingl; Armin Huber; Ramiro J Mendez; Michel Nonent; Joerg W Oestmann; Jesus C Pueyo; Siegfried Thurnher; Dominik Weishaupt; Thomas Jahnke Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-01-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Duncan Wilson; Gareth Ambler; Clare Shakeshaft; Martin M Brown; Andreas Charidimou; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Gregory Y H Lip; Hannah Cohen; Gargi Banerjee; Henry Houlden; Mark J White; Tarek A Yousry; Kirsty Harkness; Enrico Flossmann; Nigel Smyth; Louise J Shaw; Elizabeth Warburton; Keith W Muir; Hans Rolf Jäger; David J Werring Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 59.935
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: J Ding; Y Duan; M Wang; Y Yuan; Z Zhuo; L Gan; Q Song; B Gao; L Yang; H Liu; Y Hou; F Zheng; R Chen; J Wang; L Lin; B Zhang; G Zhang; Y Liu Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-03-03 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Min Lang; Samuel Cartmell; Azadeh Tabari; Daniel Briggs; Oleg Pianykh; John Kirsch; Stephen Cauley; Wei-Ching Lo; Seretha Risacher; Augusto Goncalves Filho; Marc D Succi; Otto Rapalino; Pamela Schaefer; John Conklin; Susie Y Huang Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2021-10-08 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: John Conklin; Maria Gabriela Figueiro Longo; Azadeh Tabari; Augusto Lio Goncalves Filho; Wei Liu; Daniel Nicolas Splitthoff; Wei-Ching Lo; Stephen F Cauley; Kawin Setsompop; Pamela W Schaefer; John E Kirsch; Otto Rapalino; Susie Y Huang Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 7.034
Authors: H J Baek; Y J Heo; D Kim; S Y Yun; J W Baek; H W Jeong; H J Choo; J Y Lee; S-I Oh Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.966
Authors: M G F Longo; J Conklin; S F Cauley; K Setsompop; Q Tian; D Polak; M Polackal; D Splitthoff; W Liu; R G González; P W Schaefer; J E Kirsch; O Rapalino; S Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2020-07-30 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: John Conklin; Azadeh Tabari; Maria Gabriela Figueiro Longo; Camilo Jaimes Cobos; Kawin Setsompop; Stephen F Cauley; John E Kirsch; Susie Yi Huang; Otto Rapalino; Michael S Gee; Paul J Caruso Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2022-02-04
Authors: C Ngamsombat; A L M Gonçalves Filho; M G F Longo; S F Cauley; K Setsompop; J E Kirsch; Q Tian; Q Fan; D Polak; W Liu; W-C Lo; R Gilberto González; P W Schaefer; O Rapalino; J Conklin; S Y Huang Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 4.966