PURPOSE: To evaluate use of fast spin-echo (FSE) magnetic resonance imaging with and without fat suppression in the liver and upper abdomen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional spin-echo (SE) T2-weighted, FSE T2-weighted, and fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted images from 37 patients strongly suspected to have focal hepatic lesions were evaluated. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis demonstrated that fat-suppressed FSE imaging had the highest lesion-liver contrast-to-noise ratio; conventional SE imaging, the lowest. In a qualitative analysis, FSE imaging was preferred. In a rank order analysis, FSE imaging was preferred 83% of the time and fat-suppressed FSE imaging 17% of the time as regards overall image quality; fat-suppressed FSE imaging was preferred 64% of the time, FSE imaging 23% of the time, and conventional SE imaging 13% of the time as regards signal abnormality detection. CONCLUSION: FSE imaging with and without fat suppression is a potentially useful pulse sequence for evaluating the upper abdomen.
PURPOSE: To evaluate use of fast spin-echo (FSE) magnetic resonance imaging with and without fat suppression in the liver and upper abdomen. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Conventional spin-echo (SE) T2-weighted, FSE T2-weighted, and fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted images from 37 patients strongly suspected to have focal hepatic lesions were evaluated. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis demonstrated that fat-suppressed FSE imaging had the highest lesion-liver contrast-to-noise ratio; conventional SE imaging, the lowest. In a qualitative analysis, FSE imaging was preferred. In a rank order analysis, FSE imaging was preferred 83% of the time and fat-suppressed FSE imaging 17% of the time as regards overall image quality; fat-suppressed FSE imaging was preferred 64% of the time, FSE imaging 23% of the time, and conventional SE imaging 13% of the time as regards signal abnormality detection. CONCLUSION: FSE imaging with and without fat suppression is a potentially useful pulse sequence for evaluating the upper abdomen.
Authors: Andrea Agostini; Moritz F Kircher; Richard K G Do; Alessandra Borgheresi; Serena Monti; Andrea Giovagnoni; Lorenzo Mannelli Journal: Semin Roentgenol Date: 2016-05-30 Impact factor: 0.800
Authors: Xinzeng Wang; Ali Pirasteh; James Brugarolas; Neil M Rofsky; Robert E Lenkinski; Ivan Pedrosa; Ananth J Madhuranthakam Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2018-02-14 Impact factor: 4.668