PURPOSE: MR fingerprinting (MRF) is a MR technique that allows assessment of tissue relaxation times. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical application of this technique in patients with meningioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A whole-brain 3D isotropic 1mm3 acquisition under a 3.0T field strength was used to obtain MRF T1 and T2-based relaxometry values in 4:38 s. The accuracy of values was quantified by scanning a quantitative MR relaxometry phantom. In vivo evaluation was performed by applying the sequence to 20 subjects with 25 meningiomas. Regions of interest included the meningioma, caudate head, centrum semiovale, contralateral white matter and thalamus. For both phantom and subjects, mean values of both T1 and T2 estimates were obtained. Statistical significance of differences in mean values between the meningioma and other brain structures was tested using a Friedman's ANOVA test. RESULTS: MR fingerprinting phantom data demonstrated a linear relationship between measured and reference relaxometry estimates for both T1 (r2 = 0.99) and T2 (r2 = 0.97). MRF T1 relaxation times were longer in meningioma (mean ± SD 1429 ± 202 ms) compared to thalamus (mean ± SD 1054 ± 58 ms; p = 0.004), centrum semiovale (mean ± SD 825 ± 42 ms; p < 0.001) and contralateral white matter (mean ± SD 799 ± 40 ms; p < 0.001). MRF T2 relaxation times were longer for meningioma (mean ± SD 69 ± 27 ms) as compared to thalamus (mean ± SD 27 ± 3 ms; p < 0.001), caudate head (mean ± SD 39 ± 5 ms; p < 0.001) and contralateral white matter (mean ± SD 35 ± 4 ms; p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Phantom measurements indicate that the proposed 3D-MRF sequence relaxometry estimations are valid and reproducible. For in vivo, entire brain coverage was obtained in clinically feasible time and allows quantitative assessment of meningioma in clinical practice.
PURPOSE: MR fingerprinting (MRF) is a MR technique that allows assessment of tissue relaxation times. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the clinical application of this technique in patients with meningioma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A whole-brain 3D isotropic 1mm3 acquisition under a 3.0T field strength was used to obtain MRF T1 and T2-based relaxometry values in 4:38 s. The accuracy of values was quantified by scanning a quantitative MR relaxometry phantom. In vivo evaluation was performed by applying the sequence to 20 subjects with 25 meningiomas. Regions of interest included the meningioma, caudate head, centrum semiovale, contralateral white matter and thalamus. For both phantom and subjects, mean values of both T1 and T2 estimates were obtained. Statistical significance of differences in mean values between the meningioma and other brain structures was tested using a Friedman's ANOVA test. RESULTS: MR fingerprinting phantom data demonstrated a linear relationship between measured and reference relaxometry estimates for both T1 (r2 = 0.99) and T2 (r2 = 0.97). MRF T1 relaxation times were longer in meningioma (mean ± SD 1429 ± 202 ms) compared to thalamus (mean ± SD 1054 ± 58 ms; p = 0.004), centrum semiovale (mean ± SD 825 ± 42 ms; p < 0.001) and contralateral white matter (mean ± SD 799 ± 40 ms; p < 0.001). MRF T2 relaxation times were longer for meningioma (mean ± SD 69 ± 27 ms) as compared to thalamus (mean ± SD 27 ± 3 ms; p < 0.001), caudate head (mean ± SD 39 ± 5 ms; p < 0.001) and contralateral white matter (mean ± SD 35 ± 4 ms; p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Phantom measurements indicate that the proposed 3D-MRF sequence relaxometry estimations are valid and reproducible. For in vivo, entire brain coverage was obtained in clinically feasible time and allows quantitative assessment of meningioma in clinical practice.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D isotropic; Meningioma; Relaxometry; Whole-brain MR fingerprinting
Authors: Dan Ma; Eric Y Pierre; Yun Jiang; Mark D Schluchter; Kawin Setsompop; Vikas Gulani; Mark A Griswold Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Dan Ma; Stephen E Jones; Anagha Deshmane; Ken Sakaie; Eric Y Pierre; Mykol Larvie; Debra McGivney; Ingmar Blümcke; Balu Krishnan; Mark Lowe; Vikas Gulani; Imad Najm; Mark A Griswold; Z Irene Wang Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2018-12-23 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Pedro A Gómez; Miguel Molina-Romero; Guido Buonincontri; Marion I Menzel; Bjoern H Menze Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2019-06-11 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Dan Ma; Vikas Gulani; Nicole Seiberlich; Kecheng Liu; Jeffrey L Sunshine; Jeffrey L Duerk; Mark A Griswold Journal: Nature Date: 2013-03-14 Impact factor: 49.962