1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Feasibility of free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the abdomen: a comparison between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE, Radial-VIBE with KWIC reconstruction and conventional VIBE

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective:

          To evaluate the feasibilities of controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration with volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (CAIPIRINHA-VIBE), radial acquisition of VIBE (Radial-VIBE) with k-space-weighted image contrast (KWIC) reconstruction (KWIC-Radial-VIBE) and conventional-VIBE (c-VIBE) for free-breathing dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI of the abdomen.

          Methods:

          23 prospectively enrolled patients underwent DCE-MRI of the abdomen with CAIPIRINHA-VIBE ( n = 10), KWIC-Radial-VIBE ( n = 6) or c-VIBE ( n = 7). Qualitative image quality of the DCE-MR images and perfusion maps was independently scored by two abdominal radiologists using a 5-point scale (from 1, uninterpretable, to 5, very good). For quantitative analysis, the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of the liver and goodness-of-fit (GOF) of the time–intensity curve were measured.

          Results:

          In the three tested sequences, DCE-MRI had good temporal (5 s) and spatial resolution (1.48 × 1.48 × 4 mm/voxel). Interobserver agreement in the qualitative analysis was good ( ĸ = 0.753; 95% confidence interval, 0.610–0.895). Therefore, the mean scores were used in the data analysis. Overall image quality was comparable between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.52 ± 0.55) and KWIC-Radial-VIBE (3.72 ± 0.37; p = 1.000), and both were significantly better than c-VIBE (2.71 ± 0.34; p < 0.001). Perfusion map quality score was highest with KWIC-Radial-VIBE (4.33 ± 0.65), followed by CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.70 ± 0.73) and c-VIBE (3.14 ± 0.66), but without statistical significance between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE ( p = 0.167). The SNR of the liver and GOF of the time–intensity curve did not significantly differ between the three sequences ( p = 0.116 and 0.224, respectively).

          Conclusion:

          CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better performance than c-VIBE. Both can be feasible sequences with acceptable good image quality for free-breathing DCE-MRI.

          Advances in knowledge:

          CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better quality of free-breathing DCE-MRIs than c-VIBE.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Contributors
          Journal
          Br J Radiol
          Br J Radiol
          bjr
          The British Journal of Radiology
          The British Institute of Radiology.
          0007-1285
          1748-880X
          October 2016
          07 September 2016
          : 89
          : 1066
          Affiliations
          [ 1 ] Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
          [ 2 ] Department of Radiology, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Severance Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea
          [ 3 ] Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea
          [ 4 ] Department of Radiology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Republic of Korea
          [ 5 ] Siemens Healthcare Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea
          [ 6 ] MR Application Predevelopment, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany
          Author notes
          Address correspondence to: Dr Kyung Won Kim. E-mail: kyungwon_kim@ 123456amc.seoul.kr

          The authors Nieun Seo and Seong Joon Park contributed equally to this work.

          Article
          PMC5124798 PMC5124798 5124798 D16150
          10.1259/bjr.20160150
          5124798
          27504684
          © 2016 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology
          Page count
          Figures: 2, Tables: 3, References: 20, Pages: 7
          Categories
          Full Paper
          Gastrointestinal/Abdominal

          Comments

          Comment on this article