Intra-patient comparison of 3D and 2D magnetic resonance elastography techniques for assessment of liver stiffness.

PURPOSE: To evaluate performance of 3D magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) using spin-echo echo-planar imaging (seEPI) for assessment of hepatic stiffness compared with 2D gradient-recalled echo (GRE) and 2D seEPI sequences. METHODS: Fifty-seven liver MRE examinations including 2D GRE, 2D seEPI, and 3D seEPI sequences were retrospectively evaluated. Elastograms were analyzed by 2 radiologists and polygonal regions of interests (ROIs) were drawn in 2 different fashions: "curated" ROI (avoiding liver edge, major vessels, and areas of wave interferences) and "non-curated" ROI (including largest cross section of liver, to assess the contribution of artifacts). Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) was calculated as the arithmetic mean of individual stiffness values for each technique. For 3D MRE, LSMs were also calculated based on 4 slices ("abbreviated LSM"). Intra-patient variations in LSMs and different methods of ROI placement were assessed by univariate tests. A p-value of < 0.05 was set as a statistically significant difference. RESULTS: Mean surface areas of the ROIs were 50,723 mm2, 12,669 mm2, 5814 mm2, and 10,642 mm2 for 3D MRE, abbreviated 3D MRE, 2D GRE, and 2D seEPI, respectively. 3D LSMs based on curated and non-curated ROIs showed no clinically significant difference, with a mean difference less than 0.1 kPa. Abbreviated 3D LSMs had excellent correlation with 3D LSMs based on all slices (r = 0.9; p < 0.001) and were not significantly different (p = 0.927). CONCLUSION: 3D MRE allows more reproducible measurements due to its lower susceptibility to artifacts and provides larger areas of parenchyma, enabling a more comprehensive evaluation of the liver.

Safety of MRI in patients with retained cardiac leads.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety of MRI in patients with fragmented retained leads (FRLs) through numerical simulation and phantom experiments. METHODS: Electromagnetic and thermal simulations were performed to determine the worst-case RF heating of 10 patient-derived FRL models during MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T and at imaging landmarks corresponding to head, chest, and abdomen. RF heating measurements were performed in phantoms implanted with reconstructed FRL models that produced highest heating in numerical simulations. The potential for unintended tissue stimulation was assessed through a conservative estimation of the electric field induced in the tissue due to gradient-induced voltages developed along the length of FRLs. RESULTS: In simulations under conservative approach, RF exposure at B1+ ≤ 2 µT generated cumulative equivalent minutes (CEM)43 < 40 at all imaging landmarks at both 1.5 T and 3 T, indicating no thermal damage for acquisition times (TAs) < 10 min. In experiments, the maximum temperature rise when FRLs were positioned at the location of maximum electric field exposure was measured to be 2.4°C at 3 T and 2.1°C at 1.5 T. Electric fields induced in the tissue due to gradient-induced voltages remained below the threshold for cardiac tissue stimulation in all cases. CONCLUSIONS: Simulation and experimental results indicate that patients with FRLs can be scanned safely at both 1.5 T and 3 T with most clinical pulse sequences.