Synthetic versus conventional MRI for ring-enhancing brain lesions: A pre- and post-contrast comparison.

IF 1.3 Q4 NEUROIMAGING Neuroradiology Journal Pub Date : 2025-02-26 DOI:10.1177/19714009251324314
Sanket Dash, Sameer Vyas, Nidhi Bhardwaj, Paramjeet Singh, Chirag K Ahuja, Sarfraj Ahmad
{"title":"Synthetic versus conventional MRI for ring-enhancing brain lesions: A pre- and post-contrast comparison.","authors":"Sanket Dash, Sameer Vyas, Nidhi Bhardwaj, Paramjeet Singh, Chirag K Ahuja, Sarfraj Ahmad","doi":"10.1177/19714009251324314","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Synthetic MRI has potential to significantly reduce MR scan time by reconstructing multiple contrast images from a single acquisition. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality of both pre- and post-contrast synthetic MRI in subjects with ring-enhancing brain lesions with conventional images.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>50 patients with radiologically confirmed ring-enhancing brain lesions underwent TSE_MDME sequence before and after gadolinium administration along with conventional MRI sequences. Image quality was compared between synthetic and conventional sequences on a 4-point scale across 5 parameters, that is, grey white matter differentiation, demarcation of caudate nucleus, lentiform nucleus, demarcation of sulci, and SNR. Also, the artefacts, lesion conspicuity, and ability to diagnose on synthetic images were studied.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Image quality of synthetic MRI was relatively similar across all sequences except for FLAIR. The image quality comparison between synthetic and conventional images showed an agreement in 70.7% of the cases (Weighted Kappa = 0.043, <i>p</i> = <0.001). Artefacts were maximum in synthetic FLAIR sequence (52%). 50% cases showed a discordant enhancement pattern in post contrast synthetic images. Despite a higher occurrence of artefacts in synthetic post contrast images, diagnostic ability was comparable across pre- and post-contrast synthetic and conventional images.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Synthetic MRI provides comparable diagnostic quality of images with acceptable rate of artefacts in both pre and post contrast sequences. However, needs a careful interpretation especially when diagnosis is heavily relied on the enhancement pattern of lesions.</p>","PeriodicalId":47358,"journal":{"name":"Neuroradiology Journal","volume":" ","pages":"19714009251324314"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11866332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroradiology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19714009251324314","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"NEUROIMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Synthetic MRI has potential to significantly reduce MR scan time by reconstructing multiple contrast images from a single acquisition. The aim of this study was to compare the image quality of both pre- and post-contrast synthetic MRI in subjects with ring-enhancing brain lesions with conventional images.

Methods: 50 patients with radiologically confirmed ring-enhancing brain lesions underwent TSE_MDME sequence before and after gadolinium administration along with conventional MRI sequences. Image quality was compared between synthetic and conventional sequences on a 4-point scale across 5 parameters, that is, grey white matter differentiation, demarcation of caudate nucleus, lentiform nucleus, demarcation of sulci, and SNR. Also, the artefacts, lesion conspicuity, and ability to diagnose on synthetic images were studied.

Results: Image quality of synthetic MRI was relatively similar across all sequences except for FLAIR. The image quality comparison between synthetic and conventional images showed an agreement in 70.7% of the cases (Weighted Kappa = 0.043, p = <0.001). Artefacts were maximum in synthetic FLAIR sequence (52%). 50% cases showed a discordant enhancement pattern in post contrast synthetic images. Despite a higher occurrence of artefacts in synthetic post contrast images, diagnostic ability was comparable across pre- and post-contrast synthetic and conventional images.

Conclusion: Synthetic MRI provides comparable diagnostic quality of images with acceptable rate of artefacts in both pre and post contrast sequences. However, needs a careful interpretation especially when diagnosis is heavily relied on the enhancement pattern of lesions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Neuroradiology Journal
Neuroradiology Journal NEUROIMAGING-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
101
期刊介绍: NRJ - The Neuroradiology Journal (formerly Rivista di Neuroradiologia) is the official journal of the Italian Association of Neuroradiology and of the several Scientific Societies from all over the world. Founded in 1988 as Rivista di Neuroradiologia, of June 2006 evolved in NRJ - The Neuroradiology Journal. It is published bimonthly.
期刊最新文献
Aristotle wires for cannulating target vessels in paediatric neuro-interventional procedures: A case-control study. Endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms with silk vista baby flow diverter: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Characteristics of highly cited articles in cerebral angiography. Evaluating the diagnostic ability of treatment response assessment maps (TRAMs)/contrast clearance analysis (CCA) in predicting the presence of active brain tumors. Synthetic versus conventional MRI for ring-enhancing brain lesions: A pre- and post-contrast comparison.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1