Sohil H Patel1, Prem P Batchala2, Kellan Schallert2, James T Patrie3, Salma O Abbas2, David A Ornan2, Sugoto Mukherjee2, Thomas Huerta2, John P Mugler2. 1. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health, PO Box 800170, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. shp4k@virginia.edu. 2. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health, PO Box 800170, Charlottesville, VA, 22908, USA. 3. Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of a 1-min contrast-enhanced 3D-FLASH pulse sequence for detecting intracranial enhancing lesions compared to standard contrast-enhanced 3D-MPRAGE pulse sequence. METHODS: Contrast-enhanced 3D-FLASH (acquisition time 49 s) and contrast-enhanced 3D-MPRAGE (4 min 35 s) pulse sequences were performed consecutively in 110 inpatient/emergency department 3T MRI brain examinations and analyzed by two independent neuroradiologist readers. For each sequence, the readers recorded (1) number of enhancing intracranial lesions; (2) intracranial susceptibility artifact (presence or absence; mm depth of intracranial signal loss); and (3) motion artifact (none, mild, moderate, severe). Inter and intra-reader agreement and reader accuracy relative to a reference standard were determined, and sequence comparison with respect to susceptibility and motion artifacts was performed. RESULTS: There was substantial intra-reader, inter-sequence agreement [reader 1, κ = 0.70 (95% CI: [0.60, 0.81]); reader 2, κ = 0.70 (95% CI: [0.59, 0.82])] and substantial intra-sequence, inter-reader agreement [3D-MPRAGE assessment, κ = 0.76 (95% CI: [0.66, 0.86]); 3D-FLASH assessment, κ = 0.86 (95% CI: [0.77, 0.94]) for detection of intracranial enhancing lesions. For both readers, the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-FLASH and 3D-MPRAGE was similar (3D-MPRAGE: 86.4 and 88.1%; 3D-FLASH: 88.2 and 84.5%), with no inter-sequence diagnostic accuracy discordancy between the sequences for either reader. 3D-FLASH was associated with less susceptibility artifact (p < 0.001 both readers) and less motion artifact (p < 0.001 both readers). CONCLUSION: On 3T brain MRI in the inpatient and emergency department setting, 1-min 3D-FLASH pulse sequence achieved comparable diagnostic performance to 4.5 min 3D-MPRAGE pulse sequence for detecting enhancing intracranial lesions, with reduced susceptibility and motion artifacts.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of a 1-min contrast-enhanced 3D-FLASH pulse sequence for detecting intracranial enhancing lesions compared to standard contrast-enhanced 3D-MPRAGE pulse sequence. METHODS: Contrast-enhanced 3D-FLASH (acquisition time 49 s) and contrast-enhanced 3D-MPRAGE (4 min 35 s) pulse sequences were performed consecutively in 110 inpatient/emergency department 3T MRI brain examinations and analyzed by two independent neuroradiologist readers. For each sequence, the readers recorded (1) number of enhancing intracranial lesions; (2) intracranial susceptibility artifact (presence or absence; mm depth of intracranial signal loss); and (3) motion artifact (none, mild, moderate, severe). Inter and intra-reader agreement and reader accuracy relative to a reference standard were determined, and sequence comparison with respect to susceptibility and motion artifacts was performed. RESULTS: There was substantial intra-reader, inter-sequence agreement [reader 1, κ = 0.70 (95% CI: [0.60, 0.81]); reader 2, κ = 0.70 (95% CI: [0.59, 0.82])] and substantial intra-sequence, inter-reader agreement [3D-MPRAGE assessment, κ = 0.76 (95% CI: [0.66, 0.86]); 3D-FLASH assessment, κ = 0.86 (95% CI: [0.77, 0.94]) for detection of intracranial enhancing lesions. For both readers, the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-FLASH and 3D-MPRAGE was similar (3D-MPRAGE: 86.4 and 88.1%; 3D-FLASH: 88.2 and 84.5%), with no inter-sequence diagnostic accuracy discordancy between the sequences for either reader. 3D-FLASH was associated with less susceptibility artifact (p < 0.001 both readers) and less motion artifact (p < 0.001 both readers). CONCLUSION: On 3T brain MRI in the inpatient and emergency department setting, 1-min 3D-FLASH pulse sequence achieved comparable diagnostic performance to 4.5 min 3D-MPRAGE pulse sequence for detecting enhancing intracranial lesions, with reduced susceptibility and motion artifacts.
Authors: Stephan G Wetzel; Glyn Johnson; Andrew G S Tan; Soonmee Cha; Edmond A Knopp; Vivian S Lee; David Thomasson; Neil M Rofsky Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2002 Jun-Jul Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Daniel D Cummins; Michael T Caton; Vinil Shah; Karl Meisel; Christine Glastonbury; Matthew R Amans Journal: J Neuroimaging Date: 2021-12-15 Impact factor: 2.486
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