OBJECTIVE: CT serves as gold standard for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. However, CT exposes patients to ionizing radiation, a concern especially in screening scenarios with repeated examinations. Due to recent technological advances, MRI emerges as a potential alternative for lung imaging using 3D steady state free precession and ultra-short echo-time sequences. Therefore, in this study we assessed the performance of three state-of-the-art MRI sequences for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. METHODS: Lesions of variable sizes were simulated in porcine lungs placed in a dedicated chest phantom mimicking a human thorax, followed by CT and MRI examinations. Two blinded readers evaluated the acquired MR-images locating and measuring every suspect lesion. Using the CT-images as reference, logistic regression was performed to investigate the sensitivity of the tested MRI-sequences for the detection of pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: For nodules with a diameter of 6 mm, all three sequences achieved high sensitivity values above 0.91. However, the sensitivity dropped for smaller nodules, yielding an average of 0.83 for lesions with 4 mm in diameter and less than 0.69 for lesions with 2 mm in diameter. The positive predictive values ranged between 0.91 and 0.96, indicating a low amount of false positive findings. Furthermore, the size measurements done on the MR-images were subject to a bias ranging from 0.83 mm to -1.77 mm with standard deviations ranging from 1.40 mm to 2.11 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the three tested sequences. CONCLUSION: While showing promising sensitivity values for lesions larger than 4 mm, MRI appears to be not yet suited for lung cancer screening. Nonetheless, the three tested MRI sequences yielded high positive predictive values and accurate size measurements; therefore, MRI could potentially figure as imaging method of the chest in selected follow-up scenarios, e.g. of incidental findings subject to the Fleischner Criteria.
OBJECTIVE: CT serves as gold standard for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. However, CT exposes patients to ionizing radiation, a concern especially in screening scenarios with repeated examinations. Due to recent technological advances, MRI emerges as a potential alternative for lung imaging using 3D steady state free precession and ultra-short echo-time sequences. Therefore, in this study we assessed the performance of three state-of-the-art MRI sequences for the evaluation of pulmonary nodules. METHODS: Lesions of variable sizes were simulated in porcine lungs placed in a dedicated chest phantom mimicking a human thorax, followed by CT and MRI examinations. Two blinded readers evaluated the acquired MR-images locating and measuring every suspect lesion. Using the CT-images as reference, logistic regression was performed to investigate the sensitivity of the tested MRI-sequences for the detection of pulmonary nodules. RESULTS: For nodules with a diameter of 6 mm, all three sequences achieved high sensitivity values above 0.91. However, the sensitivity dropped for smaller nodules, yielding an average of 0.83 for lesions with 4 mm in diameter and less than 0.69 for lesions with 2 mm in diameter. The positive predictive values ranged between 0.91 and 0.96, indicating a low amount of false positive findings. Furthermore, the size measurements done on the MR-images were subject to a bias ranging from 0.83 mm to -1.77 mm with standard deviations ranging from 1.40 mm to 2.11 mm. There was no statistically significant difference between the three tested sequences. CONCLUSION: While showing promising sensitivity values for lesions larger than 4 mm, MRI appears to be not yet suited for lung cancer screening. Nonetheless, the three tested MRI sequences yielded high positive predictive values and accurate size measurements; therefore, MRI could potentially figure as imaging method of the chest in selected follow-up scenarios, e.g. of incidental findings subject to the Fleischner Criteria.
Authors: Adrian Huber; Julia Landau; Lukas Ebner; Yanik Bütikofer; Lars Leidolt; Barbara Brela; Michelle May; Johannes Heverhagen; Andreas Christe Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: M Regier; S Kandel; M G Kaul; B Hoffmann; H Ittrich; P M Bansmann; J Kemper; C Nolte-Ernsting; M Heller; G Adam; J Biederer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-09-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Diane M Renz; Oriane Scholz; Joachim Böttcher; Martin H Maurer; Timm Denecke; Carsten Schwarz; Alexander Pfeil; Florian Streitparth; Alexander Huppertz; Anne Mehl; Alexander Poellinger; Doris Staab; Bernd Hamm; Hans-Joachim Mentzel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Fred R Hirsch; Giorgio V Scagliotti; James L Mulshine; Regina Kwon; Walter J Curran; Yi-Long Wu; Luis Paz-Ares Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-08-27 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: J Ferlay; M Colombet; I Soerjomataram; C Mathers; D M Parkin; M Piñeros; A Znaor; F Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2018-12-06 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Salah Dajani; Virginia B Hill; John A Kalapurakal; Craig M Horbinski; Eric G Nesbit; Sean Sachdev; Amulya Yalamanchili; Tarita O Thomas Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2022-10-10 Impact factor: 4.964