Elia Manfrini1,2, Vera C Keil3,4, Marion Smits5,6, Steffi Thust6,7, Sergej Geiger1, Zeynep Bendella1, Jan Petr8, Laszlo Solymosi1. 1. Department of Neuroradiology, Bonn University Hospital, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany. 2. Facoltà di Medicina e Chirurgia, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Via Tronto 10, 60126, Ancona, Italy. 3. Department of Neuroradiology, Bonn University Hospital, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127, Bonn, Germany. vera.keil@ukbonn.de. 4. Department of Radiology, Section Neuroradiology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, VUmc, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. vera.keil@ukbonn.de. 5. Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine (Ne-515), Erasmus MC, PO Box 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 6. National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. 7. Department of Brain Rehabilitation and Repair, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London, WC1N 3BG, UK. 8. Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf, Institute of Radiopharmaceutical Cancer Research, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative MRI (qMRI) methods provide versatile neuroradiological applications and are a hot topic in research. The degree of their clinical implementation is however barely known. This survey was created to illuminate which and how qMRI techniques are currently applied across Europe. METHODS: In total, 4753 neuroradiologists from 27 countries received an online questionnaire. Demographic and professional data, experience with qMRI techniques in the brain and head and neck, usage, reasons for/against application, and knowledge of the QIBA and EIBALL initiatives were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two responders in 23 countries used the following techniques clinically (mean values in %): DWI (82.0%, n = 223), DSC (67.3%, n = 183), MRS (64.3%, n = 175), DCE (43.4%, n = 118), BOLD-fMRI (42.6%, n = 116), ASL (37.5%, n = 102), fat quantification (25.0%, n = 68), T2 mapping (16.9%, n = 46), T1 mapping (15.1%, n = 41), PET-MRI (11.8%, n = 32), IVIM (5.5%, n = 15), APT-CEST (4.8%, n = 13), and DKI (3.3%, n = 9). The most frequent usage indications for any qMRI technique were tissue differentiation (82.4%, n = 224) and oncological monitoring (72.8%, n = 198). Usage differed between countries, e.g. ASL: Germany (n = 13/63; 20.6%) vs. France (n = 31/40; 77.5%). Neuroradiologists endorsed the use of qMRI because of an improved diagnostic accuracy (89.3%, n = 243), but 50.0% (n = 136) are in need of better technology, 34.9% (n = 95) wish for more communication, and 31.3% need help with result interpretation/generation (n = 85). QIBA and EIBALL were not well known (12.5%, n = 34, and 11.0%, n = 30). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implementation of qMRI methods is highly variable. Beyond the aspect of readiness for clinical use, better availability of support and a wider dissemination of guidelines could catalyse a broader implementation. KEY POINTS: • Neuroradiologists endorse the use of qMRI techniques as they subjectively improve diagnostic accuracy. • Clinical implementation is highly variable between countries, techniques, and indications. • The use of advanced imaging could be promoted through an increase in technical support and training of both doctors and technicians.
OBJECTIVE: Quantitative MRI (qMRI) methods provide versatile neuroradiological applications and are a hot topic in research. The degree of their clinical implementation is however barely known. This survey was created to illuminate which and how qMRI techniques are currently applied across Europe. METHODS: In total, 4753 neuroradiologists from 27 countries received an online questionnaire. Demographic and professional data, experience with qMRI techniques in the brain and head and neck, usage, reasons for/against application, and knowledge of the QIBA and EIBALL initiatives were assessed. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-two responders in 23 countries used the following techniques clinically (mean values in %): DWI (82.0%, n = 223), DSC (67.3%, n = 183), MRS (64.3%, n = 175), DCE (43.4%, n = 118), BOLD-fMRI (42.6%, n = 116), ASL (37.5%, n = 102), fat quantification (25.0%, n = 68), T2 mapping (16.9%, n = 46), T1 mapping (15.1%, n = 41), PET-MRI (11.8%, n = 32), IVIM (5.5%, n = 15), APT-CEST (4.8%, n = 13), and DKI (3.3%, n = 9). The most frequent usage indications for any qMRI technique were tissue differentiation (82.4%, n = 224) and oncological monitoring (72.8%, n = 198). Usage differed between countries, e.g. ASL: Germany (n = 13/63; 20.6%) vs. France (n = 31/40; 77.5%). Neuroradiologists endorsed the use of qMRI because of an improved diagnostic accuracy (89.3%, n = 243), but 50.0% (n = 136) are in need of better technology, 34.9% (n = 95) wish for more communication, and 31.3% need help with result interpretation/generation (n = 85). QIBA and EIBALL were not well known (12.5%, n = 34, and 11.0%, n = 30). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical implementation of qMRI methods is highly variable. Beyond the aspect of readiness for clinical use, better availability of support and a wider dissemination of guidelines could catalyse a broader implementation. KEY POINTS: • Neuroradiologists endorse the use of qMRI techniques as they subjectively improve diagnostic accuracy. • Clinical implementation is highly variable between countries, techniques, and indications. • The use of advanced imaging could be promoted through an increase in technical support and training of both doctors and technicians.
Authors: Jason P Lerch; André J W van der Kouwe; Armin Raznahan; Tomáš Paus; Heidi Johansen-Berg; Karla L Miller; Stephen M Smith; Bruce Fischl; Stamatios N Sotiropoulos Journal: Nat Neurosci Date: 2017-02-23 Impact factor: 24.884
Authors: Martin Gajdoš; Pavel Říha; Martin Kojan; Irena Doležalová; Henk J M M Mutsaerts; Jan Petr; Ivan Rektor Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-05-25 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Thomas C Booth; Evita C Wiegers; Esther A H Warnert; Kathleen M Schmainda; Frank Riemer; Ruben E Nechifor; Vera C Keil; Gilbert Hangel; Patrícia Figueiredo; Maria Del Mar Álvarez-Torres; Otto M Henriksen Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-02-28 Impact factor: 5.738
Authors: Jan Petr; Louise Hogeboom; Pavel Nikulin; Evita Wiegers; Gwen Schroyen; Jesper Kallehauge; Marek Chmelík; Patricia Clement; Ruben E Nechifor; Liviu-Andrei Fodor; Philip C De Witt Hamer; Frederik Barkhof; Cyril Pernet; Maarten Lequin; Sabine Deprez; Radim Jančálek; Henk J M M Mutsaerts; Francesca B Pizzini; Kyrre E Emblem; Vera C Keil Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-12-17 Impact factor: 2.310