Literature DB >> 35027347

Clinical Feasibility of Ultrafast Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted 3D-EPI for Evaluating Intracranial Enhancing Lesions in Oncology Patients: Comparison with Standard 3D MPRAGE Sequence.

K H Ryu1, H J Baek2,3, S Skare4,5, E Cho1, I C Nam1, T H Kim6, T Sprenger5,7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND
PURPOSE: Contrast-enhanced 3D T1WI is a preferred sequence for brain tumor imaging despite the long scan time. This study investigated the clinical feasibility of ultrafast contrast-enhanced T1WI by 3D echo-planar imaging compared with a standard contrast-enhanced 3D MPRAGE sequence for evaluating intracranial enhancing lesions in oncology patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-one patients in oncology underwent brain MR imaging including both contrast-enhanced T1WI, 3D-EPI and 3D MPRAGE, in a single examination session for evaluating intracranial tumors. Two neuroradiologists evaluated image quality, lesion conspicuity, diagnostic confidence, number and size of the lesions, and contrast-to-noise ratio measurements from the 2 different sequences.
RESULTS: Ultrafast 3D-EPI T1WI did not reveal significant differences in diagnostic confidence, contrast-to-noise ratiolesion/parenchyma, and the number of enhancing lesions compared with MPRAGE (P > .05). However, ultrafast 3D-EPI T1WI revealed inferior image quality, inferior anatomic delineation and greater susceptibility artifacts with fewer motion artifacts than images obtained with MPRAGE. The mean contrast-to-noise ratioWM/GM and visual conspicuity of the lesion on ultrafast 3D-EPI T1WI were lower than those of MPRAGE (P < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrafast 3D-EPI T1WI showed comparable diagnostic performance with sufficient image quality and a 7-fold reduction in scan time for evaluating intracranial enhancing lesions compared with standard MPRAGE, even though it was limited by an inferior image quality and frequent susceptibility artifacts. Therefore, we believe that ultrafast 3D-EPI T1WI may be a viable option in oncology patients prone to movement during imaging studies.
© 2022 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35027347      PMCID: PMC8985684          DOI: 10.3174/ajnr.A7391

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol        ISSN: 0195-6108            Impact factor:   3.825


  22 in total

Review 1.  Consensus recommendations for a standardized Brain Tumor Imaging Protocol in clinical trials.

Authors:  Benjamin M Ellingson; Martin Bendszus; Jerrold Boxerman; Daniel Barboriak; Bradley J Erickson; Marion Smits; Sarah J Nelson; Elizabeth Gerstner; Brian Alexander; Gregory Goldmacher; Wolfgang Wick; Michael Vogelbaum; Michael Weller; Evanthia Galanis; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Lalitha Shankar; Paula Jacobs; Whitney B Pope; Dewen Yang; Caroline Chung; Michael V Knopp; Soonme Cha; Martin J van den Bent; Susan Chang; W K Al Yung; Timothy F Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Mark R Gilbert
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 12.300

2.  Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic.

Authors:  Anthony J Viera; Joanne M Garrett
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 1.756

3.  A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research.

Authors:  Terry K Koo; Mae Y Li
Journal:  J Chiropr Med       Date:  2016-03-31

4.  Detection of brain metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced MR with unenhanced MR and enhanced CT.

Authors:  G Sze; E Milano; C Johnson; L Heier
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1990 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Summary report on the graded prognostic assessment: an accurate and facile diagnosis-specific tool to estimate survival for patients with brain metastases.

Authors:  Paul W Sperduto; Norbert Kased; David Roberge; Zhiyuan Xu; Ryan Shanley; Xianghua Luo; Penny K Sneed; Samuel T Chao; Robert J Weil; John Suh; Amit Bhatt; Ashley W Jensen; Paul D Brown; Helen A Shih; John Kirkpatrick; Laurie E Gaspar; John B Fiveash; Veronica Chiang; Jonathan P S Knisely; Christina Maria Sperduto; Nancy Lin; Minesh Mehta
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2011-12-27       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Diagnostic accuracy of MRI compared to CCT in patients with brain metastases.

Authors:  P D Schellinger; H M Meinck; A Thron
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 4.130

7.  Theoretical analysis of gadopentetate dimeglumine enhancement in T1-weighted imaging of the brain: comparison of two-dimensional spin-echo and three-dimensional gradient-echo sequences.

Authors:  J P Mugler; J R Brookeman
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  1993 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Diagnosis of cerebral metastases: double-dose delayed CT vs contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Authors:  P C Davis; P A Hudgins; S B Peterman; J C Hoffman
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  1991 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 3.825

9.  Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of metastatic brain tumor at 3 tesla: utility of T(1)-weighted SPACE compared with 2D spin echo and 3D gradient echo sequence.

Authors:  Tomohiro Komada; Shinji Naganawa; Hiroshi Ogawa; Masaya Matsushima; Seiji Kubota; Hisashi Kawai; Hiroshi Fukatsu; Mitsuru Ikeda; Minako Kawamura; Yasuo Sakurai; Katsuya Maruyama
Journal:  Magn Reson Med Sci       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 2.471

Review 10.  Are Movement Artifacts in Magnetic Resonance Imaging a Real Problem?-A Narrative Review.

Authors:  Inger Havsteen; Anders Ohlhues; Kristoffer H Madsen; Janus Damm Nybing; Hanne Christensen; Anders Christensen
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 4.003

View more
  1 in total

1.  Usefulness of Wave-CAIPI for Postcontrast 3D T1-SPACE in the Evaluation of Brain Metastases.

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

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.