S Fujita1,2, K Yokoyama3, A Hagiwara4, S Kato1,2, C Andica1, K Kamagata1, N Hattori3, O Abe2, S Aoki1. 1. From the Departments of Radiology (S.F., A.H., S.K., C.A., K.K., S.A.). 2. Department of Radiology (S.F., S.K., O.A.), The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan. 3. Neurology (K.Y., N.H.), Juntendo University, Tokyo, Japan. 4. From the Departments of Radiology (S.F., A.H., S.K., C.A., K.K., S.A.) a-hagiwara@juntendo.ac.jp.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic MR imaging creates multiple contrast-weighted images based on a single time-efficient quantitative scan, which has been mostly performed for 2D acquisition. We assessed the utility of 3D synthetic MR imaging in patients with MS by comparing its diagnostic image quality and lesion volumetry with conventional MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with MS prospectively underwent 3D quantitative synthetic MR imaging and conventional T1-weighted, T2-weighted, FLAIR, and double inversion recovery imaging, with acquisition times of 9 minutes 3 seconds and 18 minutes 27 seconds for the synthetic MR imaging and conventional MR imaging sequences, respectively. Synthetic phase-sensitive inversion recovery images and those corresponding to conventional MR imaging contrasts were created for synthetic MR imaging. Two neuroradiologists independently assessed the image quality on a 5-point Likert scale. The numbers of cortical lesions and lesion volumes were quantified using both synthetic and conventional image sets. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic image quality of synthetic T1WI and double inversion recovery images was noninferior to that of conventional images (P = .23 and .20, respectively), whereas that of synthetic T2WI and FLAIR was inferior to that of conventional images (both Ps < .001). There were no significant differences in the number of cortical lesions (P = .17 and .53 for each rater) or segmented lesion volumes (P = .61) between the synthetic and conventional image sets. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional synthetic MR imaging could serve as an alternative to conventional MR imaging in evaluating MS with a reduced scan time.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Synthetic MR imaging creates multiple contrast-weighted images based on a single time-efficient quantitative scan, which has been mostly performed for 2D acquisition. We assessed the utility of 3D synthetic MR imaging in patients with MS by comparing its diagnostic image quality and lesion volumetry with conventional MR imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with MS prospectively underwent 3D quantitative synthetic MR imaging and conventional T1-weighted, T2-weighted, FLAIR, and double inversion recovery imaging, with acquisition times of 9 minutes 3 seconds and 18 minutes 27 seconds for the synthetic MR imaging and conventional MR imaging sequences, respectively. Synthetic phase-sensitive inversion recovery images and those corresponding to conventional MR imaging contrasts were created for synthetic MR imaging. Two neuroradiologists independently assessed the image quality on a 5-point Likert scale. The numbers of cortical lesions and lesion volumes were quantified using both synthetic and conventional image sets. RESULTS: The overall diagnostic image quality of synthetic T1WI and double inversion recovery images was noninferior to that of conventional images (P = .23 and .20, respectively), whereas that of synthetic T2WI and FLAIR was inferior to that of conventional images (both Ps < .001). There were no significant differences in the number of cortical lesions (P = .17 and .53 for each rater) or segmented lesion volumes (P = .61) between the synthetic and conventional image sets. CONCLUSIONS: Three-dimensional synthetic MR imaging could serve as an alternative to conventional MR imaging in evaluating MS with a reduced scan time.
Authors: L N Tanenbaum; A J Tsiouris; A N Johnson; T P Naidich; M C DeLano; E R Melhem; P Quarterman; S X Parameswaran; A Shankaranarayanan; M Goyen; A S Field Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2017-04-27 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Alan J Thompson; Brenda L Banwell; Frederik Barkhof; William M Carroll; Timothy Coetzee; Giancarlo Comi; Jorge Correale; Franz Fazekas; Massimo Filippi; Mark S Freedman; Kazuo Fujihara; Steven L Galetta; Hans Peter Hartung; Ludwig Kappos; Fred D Lublin; Ruth Ann Marrie; Aaron E Miller; David H Miller; Xavier Montalban; Ellen M Mowry; Per Soelberg Sorensen; Mar Tintoré; Anthony L Traboulsee; Maria Trojano; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Sandra Vukusic; Emmanuelle Waubant; Brian G Weinshenker; Stephen C Reingold; Jeffrey A Cohen Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2017-12-21 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: A Hagiwara; M Hori; K Yokoyama; M Y Takemura; C Andica; T Tabata; K Kamagata; M Suzuki; K K Kumamaru; M Nakazawa; N Takano; H Kawasaki; N Hamasaki; A Kunimatsu; S Aoki Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2016-12-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: Jeroen J G Geurts; Petra J W Pouwels; Bernard M J Uitdehaag; Chris H Polman; Frederik Barkhof; Jonas A Castelijns Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 11.105