Intra-patient and inter-observer image quality analysis in liver MRI study with gadoxetic acid using two different multi-arterial phase techniques.

PURPOSE: To evaluate intra-patient and interobserver agreement in patients who underwent liver MRI with gadoxetic acid using two different multi-arterial phase (AP) techniques. METHODS: A total of 154 prospectively enrolled patients underwent clinical gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI twice within 12 months, using two different multi-arterial algorithms: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and TWIST-VIBE. For every patient, breath-holding time, body mass index, sex, age were recorded. The phase without contrast media and the APs were independently evaluated by two radiologists who quantified Gibbs artefacts, noise, respiratory motion artefacts, and general image quality. Presence or absence of Gibbs artefacts and noise was compared by the McNemar's test. Respiratory motion artefacts and image quality scores were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank test. Interobserver agreement was assessed by Cohen kappa statistics. RESULTS: Compared with TWIST-VIBE, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE images had better scores for every parameter except higher noise score. Triple APs were always acquired with TWIST-VIBE but failed in 37% using CAIPIRINHA-VIBE: 11% have only one AP, 26% have two. Breath-holding time was the only parameter that influenced the success of multi-arterial techniques. TWIST-VIBE images had worst score for Gibbs and respiratory motion artefacts but lower noise score. CONCLUSION: CAIPIRINHA-VIBE images were always diagnostic, but with a failure of triple-AP in 37%. TWIST-VIBE was successful in obtaining three APs in all patients. Breath-holding time is the only parameter which can influence the preliminary choice between CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and TWIST-VIBE algorithm. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: If the patient is expected to perform good breath-holds, TWIST-VIBE is preferable; otherwise, CAIPIRINHA-VIBE is more appropriate.

Multiparametric Characterization and Spatial Distribution of Different MS Lesion Phenotypes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: MS lesions exhibit varying degrees of axonal and myelin damage. A comprehensive description of lesion phenotypes could contribute to an improved radiologic evaluation of smoldering inflammation and remyelination processes. This study aimed to identify in vivo distinct MS lesion types using quantitative susceptibility mapping and susceptibility mapping-weighted imaging and to characterize them through T1-relaxometry, myelin mapping, and diffusion MR imaging. The spatial distribution of lesion phenotypes in relation to ventricular CSF was investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MS lesions of 53 individuals were categorized into iso- or hypointense lesions, hyperintense lesions, and paramagnetic rim lesions, on the basis of their appearance on quantitative susceptibility mapping alone, according to published criteria, and with the additional support of susceptibility mapping-weighted imaging. Susceptibility values, T1-relaxation times, myelin and free water fractions, intracellular volume fraction, and the orientation dispersion index were compared among lesion phenotypes. The distance of the geometric center of each lesion from the ventricular CSF was calculated. RESULTS: Eight hundred ninety-six MS lesions underwent the categorization process using quantitative susceptibility mapping and susceptibility mapping-weighted imaging. The novel use of susceptibility mapping-weighted images, which revealed additional microvasculature details, led us to re-allocate several lesions to different categories, resulting in a 35.6% decrease in the number of paramagnetic rim lesions, a 22.5% decrease in hyperintense lesions, and a 17.2% increase in iso- or hypointense lesions, with respect to the categorization based on quantitative susceptibility mapping only. The outcome of the categorization based on the joint use of quantitative susceptibility mapping and susceptibility mapping-weighted imaging was that 44.4% of lesions were iso- or hypointense lesions, 47.9% were hyperintense lesions, and 7.7% were paramagnetic rim lesions. A worsening gradient was observed from iso- or hypointense lesions to hyperintense lesions to paramagnetic rim lesions in T1-relaxation times, myelin water fraction, free water fraction, and intracellular volume fraction. Paramagnetic rim lesions were located closer to ventricular CSF than iso- or hypointense lesions. The volume of hyperintense lesions was associated with a more severe disease course. CONCLUSIONS: Quantitative susceptibility mapping and susceptibility mapping-weighted imaging allow in vivo classification of MS lesions into different phenotypes, characterized by different levels of axonal and myelin loss and spatial distribution. Hyperintense lesions and paramagnetic rim lesions, which have the most severe microstructural damage, were more often observed in the periventricular WM and were associated with a more severe disease course.