Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of oral water and intravenous furosemide challenges on blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance imaging measurements in the kidney and to examine the contribution of R2 (=1/T2) to changes in R2* (=1/T2*). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and written informed consent was obtained from all subjects. Nine healthy volunteers were imaged at 3 T on 2 visits. During each visit, a baseline fasting magnetic resonance acquisition was followed by a diuretic challenge: oral water load for the first visit and furosemide for the second. R2* and R2 values in the renal cortex and medulla were measured using multiple gradient echo and multiple spin echo sequences, respectively, and R2' values were computed as R2' = R2* - R2. Timed urinary output was also measured. RESULTS: Averaged across all subjects, the R2* response to furosemide was greater than to water and greater in the medulla than the cortex. The mean R2 responses exhibited the same trends but were uniformly smaller than the mean R2* responses. The peak changes in R2* and R2 appeared, on average, 10 to 14 minutes before peak urinary output. The median percentage contribution of R2 to R2* changes was 16% in the medulla after both challenges. In the cortex, the median contribution was 48% after water load and 58% after furosemide challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The contributions of R2 to R2* changes after water load and furosemide challenge are not negligible, especially in the renal cortex. In routine clinical practice, R2* could be used alone as a rough surrogate for R2' in the medulla. However, in the cortex, both R2 and R2* should be measured to obtain accurate values of R2'.

Purpose:To evaluate diagnostic performance of three nonenhanced methods: variable-refocusing-flip angle (FA) fast spin-echo (SE)-based magnetic resonance (MR) angiography (variable FA MR) and constant-refocusing-FA fast SE-based MR angiography (constant-FA MR) and flow-sensitive dephasing (FSD)-prepared steady-state free precession MR angiography (FSD MR) for calf arteries, with dual-injection three-station contrast material-enhanced MR angiography (gadolinium-enhanced MR) as reference.Materials and Methods:This prospective study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant, with informed consent. Twenty-one patients (13 men, eight women; mean age, 62.6 years) underwent calf-station variable-FA MR, constant-FA MR, and FSD MR at 1.5 T, with gadolinium-enhanced MR as reference. Image quality and stenosis severity were assessed in 13 segments per leg by two radiologists blinded to clinical data. Combined constant-FA MR and FSD MR reading was also performed. Methods were compared (logistic regression for correlated data) for diagnostic accuracy.Results:Of 546 arterial segments, 148 (27.1%) had a hemodynamically significant (>/= 50%) stenosis. Image quality was satisfactory for all nonenhanced MR sequences. FSD MR was significantly superior to both other sequences (P < .0001), with 5-cm smaller field of view; 9.6% variable-FA MR, 9.6% constant-FA MR, and 0% FSD MR segmental evaluations had nondiagnostic image quality scores, mainly from high diastolic flow (variable-FA MR) and motion artifact (constant-FA MR). Stenosis sensitivity and specificity were highest for FSD MR (80.3% and 81.7%, respectively), compared with those for constant-FA MR (72.3%, P = .086; and 81.8%, P = .96) and variable-FA MR (75.9%, P = .54; and 75.6%, P = .22). Combined constant-FA MR and FSD MR had superior sensitivity (81.8%) and specificity (88.3%) compared with constant-FA MR (P = .0076), variable-FA MR (P = .0044), and FSD MR (P = .0013). All sequences had an excellent negative predictive value (NPV): 93.2%, constant-FA MR; 94.7%, variable-FA MR; 91.7%, FSD MR; and 92.9%, combined constant-FA MR and FSD MR.Conclusion:At 1.5 T, all evaluated nonenhanced MR angiographic methods demonstrated satisfactory image quality and excellent NPV for hemodynamically significant stenosis.(c) RSNA, 2013Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsna.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1148/radiol.12120859/-/DC1.

OBJECTIVE: To create 3DMR osseous models of the shoulder similar to 3DCT models using a gradient-echo-based two-point/Dixon sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT and 3TMR examinations of 7 cadaveric shoulders were obtained. Glenoid defects were created in 4 of the cadaveric shoulders. Each MR study included an axial Dixon 3D-dual-echo-time T1W-FLASH (acquisition time of 3 min/30 s). The water-only image data from the Dixon sequence and CT data were post-processed using 3D software. The following measurements were obtained on the shoulders: surface area (SA), height/width of the glenoid and humeral head, and width of the biceps groove. The glenoid defects were measured on imaging and compared with measurements made on en face digital photographs of the glenoid fossae (reference standard). Paired t tests/ANOVA were used to assess the differences between the imaging modalities. RESULTS: The differences between the glenoid and humeral measurements were not statistically significant (cm): glenoid SA 0.12 +/- 0.04 (p = 0.45) and glenoid width 0.13 +/- 0.06 (p = 0.06) with no difference in glenoid height measurement; humeral head SA 0.07 +/- 0.12 (p = 0.42), humeral head height 0.03 +/- 0.06 (p = 0.42), humeral head width 0.07 +/- 0.06(p = 0.18), and biceps groove width 0.02 +/- 0.01 (p = 0.07). The mean/standard deviation difference between the reference standard and 3DMR measurements was 0.25 +/- 0.96 %/0.30 +/- 0.14 mm; 3DCT 0.25 +/- 0.96 /0.75 +/- 0.39 mm. There was no statistical difference between the measurements obtained on 3DMR and 3DCT (percentage, p = 0.45; mm, p = 0.20). CONCLUSION: Accurate 3D osseous models of the shoulder can be produced using a 3D two-point/Dixon sequence and can be added to MR examinations with a minor increase in imaging time, used to quantify glenoid loss, and may eliminate the need for pre-surgical CT examinations.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of a highly accelerated breath-hold 3-dimensional noncontrast-enhanced steady-state free precession thoracic magnetic resonance angiography (NC-MRA) technique in a clinical population, including assessment of image quality, aortic dimensions, and aortic pathology, compared with electrocardiographically gated gadolinium-enhanced MRA (Gd-MRA). MATERIALS AND METHODS: After approval from the institution board and informed consent were obtained, 30 patients (22 men; mean age, 53.4 years) with known or suspected aortic pathology were imaged with NC-MRA followed by Gd-MRA at a single examination at 1.5 T. Images were made anonymous and reviewed by 2 readers for aortic pathology and diagnostic confidence on a 5-point scale (1, worst; 5, best) on a patient basis. Image quality and artifacts were also evaluated in 10 vascular segments: aortic annulus, sinuses of Valsalva, sinotubular junction, ascending aorta, aortic arch, descending aorta, diaphragmatic aorta, great vessel origins, and the left main and right coronary artery origins. Finally, aortic dimensions were measured in each of the 7 aortic segments. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was used to compare diagnostic confidence, image quality, and artifact scores between NC-MRA and Gd-MRA. The paired Student t test and Bland-Altman analysis were used for comparison of aortic dimensions. RESULTS: All patients completed NC-MRA and Gd-MRA successfully. Vascular pathologic findings were concordant with Gd-MRA in 29 of 30 (96.7%) patients and 28 of 30 (93.3%) patients for readers 1 and 2, respectively, with high diagnostic confidence (mean [SD], 4.35 [0.77]) not significantly different from Gd-MRA (4.38 [0.64]; P = 0.74). The image quality and artifact scores were comparable with Gd-MRA in most vascular segments. Notable differences were observed at the ascending aorta, where Gd-MRA had superior image quality (4.13 [0.73]) compared with NC-MRA (3.80 [0.88]; P = 0.028), and at the coronary artery origins where NC-MRA was considered superior (NC-MRA vs Gd-MRA, 3.38 [1.47] vs 2.78 [1.21] for the left main artery and NC-MRA vs Gd-MRA, 3.55 [1.40] vs 2.32 [1.16] for the right coronary artery; P < 0.05, both comparisons). The aortic dimensions were comparable, with the only significant difference observed at the ascending aorta, where NC-MRA dimension (4.05 [0.76]) was less than 1 mm smaller than that of Gd-MRA (4.12 [0.7]; P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Breath-hold NC-MRA of the thoracic aorta yields good image quality, comparable to Gd-MRA, with high accuracy for aortic dimension and pathology. It can be considered as an alternative to Gd-MRA in patients with relative contraindications to gadolinium contrast or problems with intravenous access.