Clinical application of 3D VIBECAIPI-DIXON for non-enhanced imaging of the pancreas compared to a standard 2D fat-saturated FLASH.

PURPOSE: To compare a fast 3D VIBE sequence with Dixon fat saturation and CAIPIRINHA acceleration techniques (3D VIBE(CAIPI-DIXON)) to a standard 2D FLASH sequence with spectral fat saturation and conventional GRAPPA acceleration technique (2D Flash(GRAPPA-fs)) for non-enhanced imaging of the pancreas. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this retrospective, institutional review board-approved intra-individual comparison study, 29 patients (7 female, 22 male; mean age 60.4 ± 20.9 years) examined on a 48-channel 3.0-T MR system (MAGNETOM Skyra VD 13, Siemens Healthcare Sector, Germany) were included. 3D VIBE(CAIPI-DIXON) (TR/TE-3.95/2.5+1.27 ms; spatial resolution-1.2 × 1.2 × 3.0 mm(3); CAIPIRINHA 2 × 2 [1], acquisition time-0:12 min) and 2D Flash(GRAPPA-fs) (TR/TE-195/3.69 ms; 1.2 × 1.2 × 3.0 mm(3); GRAPPA 2, 3 × 0:21 min) sequences were performed in each subject in random order prior to the administration of an intravenous contrast agent. Two radiologists evaluated the images with regard to diagnostic preference. Semi-quantitative signal ratios were calculated for the pancreas versus the liver, spleen, muscle, and visceral fat. Inter-reader agreement was calculated using unweighted Cohen's kappa. Signal ratio results were analyzed using a univariate analysis of variance. Additional signal-to-noise (SNR) measurements were performed in a phantom. RESULTS: 3D VIBE(CAIPI-DIXON) was preferred in 72.4% (both readers) and 2D Flash(GRAPPA-fs) in 3.4%/6.9% (reader 1/2) of cases with a kappa value of 0.756. The main reasons for this preference were homogenous fat saturation with 3D VIBE(CAIPI-DIXON) and reduced motion artifacts due to a faster acquisition, leading to improved delineation of the pancreas. Signal ratios of pancreatic to fat signal for 3D VIBE(CAIPI-DIXON) (10.08 ± 3.48) and 2D Flash(GRAPPA-fs) (6.53 ± 3.07) were statistically different (P<.001). However, no additional statistically significant differences in signal ratios were identified (range: 0.73 ± 0.18 to 1.37 ± 0.40; .514

Peripheral MRA with continuous table movement: imaging speed and robustness compared to a conventional stepping table technique.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential of continuous table movement (CTM)-MRA for reduction of acquisition time and to evaluate the image quality in comparison to conventional stepping table (CST) MRA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data of 82 patients were included in this retrospective, IRB-approved study. All patients underwent peripheral MRA at our institution. 41 consecutive patients were examined with a CST-MRA at a 1.5 T MR system. 41 different consecutive patients were examined with a CTM-MRA at 3.0 T MR system. Image quality was assessed by two independent radiologists in consensus on a 4-point Likert-type scale. Descriptive statistics and t-tests were used to compare image acquisition time of CST-MRA to that of CTM-MRA with and without additional time-resolved imaging of the feet using the TWIST technique. Additionally, acquisition time was compared in a subgroup of the fastest 50%. RESULTS: The mean imaging time for the CTM-MRA was 34% less than with the CST-MRA (18.2 min vs. 27.5 min; p<0.0001). Even with inclusion of the TWIST sequence the combined CTM-/TWIST-MRA protocol was 26% faster (20.3 min vs. 27.5 min; p<0.0001). The image quality was slightly better with CTM-MRA (CTM-MRA mean score 3.3±0.5, mean score CST-MRA 2.9±0.6). Venous overlay was significantly lower using the CTM-MRA approach (CTM-MRA mean score 2.8±0.4; CST-MRA mean score 2.2±0.7; p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: CTM-MRA is on average 30% faster than a comparable CST-MRA protocol with equal image quality. Even when adding an additional time-resolved-MRA of the calf station the CTM-MRA protocol is still 26% faster. In conclusion, this study proves that CTM-MRA further improves MRA by reducing user interference and image acquisition times and hence allowing to increase the clinical throughput.