T1-weighted Motion Mitigation in Abdominal MRI: Technical Principles, Clinical Applications, Current Limitations, and Future Prospects.

T1-weighted (T1W) pulse sequences are an indispensable component of clinical protocols in abdominal MRI but usually require multiple breath holds (BHs) during the examination, which not all patients can sustain. Patient motion can affect the quality of T1W imaging so that key diagnostic information, such as intrinsic signal intensity and contrast enhancement image patterns, cannot be determined. Patient motion also has a negative impact on examination efficiency, as multiple acquisition attempts prolong the duration of the examination and often remain noncontributory. Techniques for mitigation of motion-related artifacts at T1W imaging include multiple arterial acquisitions within one BH; free breathing with respiratory gating or respiratory triggering; and radial imaging acquisition techniques, such as golden-angle radial k-space acquisition (stack-of-stars). While each of these techniques has inherent strengths and limitations, the selection of a specific motion-mitigation technique is based on several factors, including the clinical task under investigation, downstream technical ramifications, patient condition, and user preference. The authors review the technical principles of free-breathing motion mitigation techniques in abdominal MRI with T1W sequences, offer an overview of the established clinical applications, and outline the existing limitations of these techniques. In addition, practical guidance for abdominal MRI protocol strategies commonly encountered in clinical scenarios involving patients with limited BH abilities is rendered. Future prospects of free-breathing T1W imaging in abdominal MRI are also discussed. ©RSNA, 2024 See the invited commentary by Fraum and An in this issue.

Intra-patient variability of iodine quantification across different dual-energy CT platforms: assessment of normalization techniques.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate intra-patient variability of iodine concentration (IC) between three different dual-energy CT (DECT) platforms and to test different normalization approaches. METHODS: Forty-four patients who underwent portal venous phase abdominal DECT on a dual-source (dsDECT), a rapid kVp switching (rsDECT), and a dual-layer detector platform (dlDECT) during cancer follow-up were retrospectively included. IC in the liver, pancreas, and kidneys and different normalized ICs (NICPV:portal vein; NICAA:abdominal aorta; NICALL:overall iodine load) were compared between the three DECT scanners for each patient. A longitudinal mixed effects analysis was conducted to elucidate the effect of the scanner type, scan order, inter-scan time, and contrast media amount on normalized iodine concentration. RESULTS: Variability of IC was highest in the liver (dsDECT vs. dlDECT 28.96 (14.28-46.87) %, dsDECT vs. rsDECT 29.08 (16.59-62.55) %, rsDECT vs. dlDECT 22.85 (7.52-33.49) %), and lowest in the kidneys (dsDECT vs. dlDECT 15.76 (7.03-26.1) %, dsDECT vs. rsDECT 15.67 (8.86-25.56) %, rsDECT vs. dlDECT 10.92 (4.92-22.79) %). NICALL yielded the best reduction of IC variability throughout all tissues and inter-scanner comparisons, yet did not reduce the variability between dsDECT vs. dlDECT and rsDECT, respectively, in the liver. The scanner type remained a significant determinant for NICALL in the pancreas and the liver (F-values, 12.26 and 23.78; both, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: We found tissue-specific intra-patient variability of IC across different DECT scanner types. Normalization mitigated variability by reducing physiological fluctuations in iodine distribution. After normalization, the scanner type still had a significant effect on iodine variability in the pancreas and liver. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Differences in iodine quantification between dual-energy CT scanners can partly be mitigated by normalization, yet remain relevant for specific tissues and inter-scanner comparisons, which should be taken into account at clinical routine imaging. KEY POINTS: • Iodine concentration showed the least variability between scanner types in the kidneys (range 10.92-15.76%) and highest variability in the liver (range 22.85-29.08%). • Normalizing tissue-specific iodine concentrations against the overall iodine load yielded the greatest reduction of variability between scanner types for 2/3 inter-scanner comparisons in the liver and for all (3/3) inter-scanner comparisons in the kidneys and pancreas, respectively. • However, even after normalization, the dual-energy CT scanner type was found to be the factor significantly influencing variability of iodine concentration in the liver and pancreas.