Seo Nieun, Park Seong J, Kim Bohyun, Lee Chang K, Huh Jimi, Kim Jeong K, Lee Seung S, Kim In S, Nickel Dominik, Kim Kyung W
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.
Br J Radiol. 2016 Oct;89(1066):20160150. doi: 10.1259/bjr.20160150. Epub 2016 Aug 9.
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.
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.
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).
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.
CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and KWIC-Radial-VIBE provide comparably better quality of free-breathing DCE-MRIs than c-VIBE.
评估并行成像中的可控混叠技术结合容积内插屏气检查（CAIPIRINHA-VIBE）、采用k空间加权图像对比度（KWIC）重建的VIBE序列径向采集（Radial-VIBE）及传统VIBE序列（c-VIBE）用于腹部自由呼吸动态对比增强（DCE）磁共振成像（MRI）时实现更高加速率的可行性。
23例前瞻性入组患者接受腹部DCE-MRI检查，其中10例采用CAIPIRINHA-VIBE序列，6例采用KWIC-Radial-VIBE序列，7例采用c-VIBE序列。由两名腹部放射科医生独立使用5分制（从1分不可解读到5分非常好）对DCE-MR图像和灌注图的定性图像质量进行评分。进行定量分析时，测量肝脏的信噪比（SNR）和时间-强度曲线的拟合优度（GOF）。
在三个测试序列中，DCE-MRI具有良好的时间分辨率（5秒）和空间分辨率（1.48×1.48×4毫米/体素）。定性分析中的观察者间一致性良好（ĸ = 0.753；95%置信区间，0.610 - 0.895）。因此，在数据分析中使用平均得分。CAIPIRINHA-VIBE序列（3.52±0.55）和KWIC-Radial-VIBE序列（3.72±0.37；p = 1.000）的整体图像质量相当，且均显著优于c-VIBE序列（2.71±0.34；p < 0.001）。KWIC-Radial-VIBE序列的灌注图质量评分最高（4.33±0.65），其次是CAIPIRINHA-VIBE序列（3.70±0.73）和c-VIBE序列（3.14±0.66），但CAIPIRINHA-VIBE序列和KWIC-Radial-VIBE序列之间无统计学差异（p = 0.167）。三个序列之间肝脏的SNR和时间-强度曲线的GOF无显著差异（分别为p = 0.116和0.224）。
CAIPIRINHA-VIBE序列和KWIC-Radial-VIBE序列的性能比c-VIBE序列更好。两者均可作为腹部自由呼吸DCE-MRI具有可接受良好图像质量的可行序列。
CAIPIRINHA-VIBE序列和KWIC-Radial-VIBE序列用于腹部自由呼吸DCE-MRI时提供的图像质量比c-VIBE序列更好。
