Evaluation of the clinical utility of maximum intensity projections of 3D contrast-enhanced, T1-weighted imaging for the detection of brain metastases.
CNS
MR-imaging
metastases
Journal
Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)
ISSN: 2573-8348
Titre abrégé: Cancer Rep (Hoboken)
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101747728
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
14
05
2020
revised:
09
06
2020
accepted:
08
07
2020
pubmed:
10
8
2020
medline:
27
11
2021
entrez:
10
8
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To visualize and assess brain metastases on magnetic resonance imaging, radiologists face an ever-increasing pressure to perform faster and more efficiently. The usage of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of contrast-enhanced T1-weighed (T1ce) magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition with gradient echo (MP-RAGE) images proposes to increase reading efficiency by increasing lesion conspicuity while reducing in the number of images to be reviewed. To assess if MIPs save reading time and achieve the same level of diagnostic accuracy as standard 1 mm T1ce images for the detection of brain metastases. Forty-four patients were included in this retrospective study. Axial reformations of T1ce MP-RAGE (TR/TE = 2300/2.25 ms, resolution = 1 mm About 22.5 61.2 s/study and 43.8 ± 159.9 s/study were saved using 5 and 10 mm MIPs, respectively. Combined average sensitivity was 92.0% for 5 mm MIPs and 86.3% for 10 mm MIPs compared to standard 1 mm axial slices, with an average rate of 0.98 and 0.57 false positives per study, respectively CONCLUSION: While 5 mm and 10 mm T1ce MP-RAGE MIPs showed a clinical benefit in reducing reading times for evaluation of brain metastases, they should be used in conjunction with standard 1 mm images for best sensitivity and specificity, a practice which possibly annuls their benefit.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
To visualize and assess brain metastases on magnetic resonance imaging, radiologists face an ever-increasing pressure to perform faster and more efficiently. The usage of maximum intensity projections (MIPs) of contrast-enhanced T1-weighed (T1ce) magnetization-prepared rapid acquisition with gradient echo (MP-RAGE) images proposes to increase reading efficiency by increasing lesion conspicuity while reducing in the number of images to be reviewed.
AIM
To assess if MIPs save reading time and achieve the same level of diagnostic accuracy as standard 1 mm T1ce images for the detection of brain metastases.
METHODS
Forty-four patients were included in this retrospective study. Axial reformations of T1ce MP-RAGE (TR/TE = 2300/2.25 ms, resolution = 1 mm
RESULTS
About 22.5 61.2 s/study and 43.8 ± 159.9 s/study were saved using 5 and 10 mm MIPs, respectively. Combined average sensitivity was 92.0% for 5 mm MIPs and 86.3% for 10 mm MIPs compared to standard 1 mm axial slices, with an average rate of 0.98 and 0.57 false positives per study, respectively CONCLUSION: While 5 mm and 10 mm T1ce MP-RAGE MIPs showed a clinical benefit in reducing reading times for evaluation of brain metastases, they should be used in conjunction with standard 1 mm images for best sensitivity and specificity, a practice which possibly annuls their benefit.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32770649
doi: 10.1002/cnr2.1277
pmc: PMC7941491
doi:
Substances chimiques
Contrast Media
0
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e1277Informations de copyright
© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Neuro Oncol. 2015 Sep;17(9):1188-98
pubmed: 26250565
Eur Radiol. 2006 Feb;16(2):325-32
pubmed: 16086181
J Neurooncol. 1999;44(3):275-81
pubmed: 10720207
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2018 Sep;39(9):1635-1642
pubmed: 30093483
Eur Radiol. 2007 Dec;17(12):3148-56
pubmed: 17763856
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016 Nov/Dec;40(6):997-1000
pubmed: 27529685
Ecancermedicalscience. 2013 Apr 18;7:308
pubmed: 23634178
Neuroimage. 2000 Jul;12(1):112-27
pubmed: 10875908
Cancer Rep (Hoboken). 2020 Oct;3(5):e1277
pubmed: 32770649
Korean J Radiol. 2017 Jul-Aug;18(4):699-709
pubmed: 28670165
Ann Neurol. 1993 Jun;33(6):583-90
pubmed: 8498838
J Neurosurg. 2016 Feb;124(2):489-95
pubmed: 26361281
Comput Biol Med. 2018 Apr 1;95:43-54
pubmed: 29455079
Lancet Oncol. 2009 Nov;10(11):1037-44
pubmed: 19801201
N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 22;322(8):494-500
pubmed: 2405271
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2006 Sep 1;66(1):187-94
pubmed: 16814946
Magn Reson Med. 1990 Jul;15(1):152-7
pubmed: 2374495
J Neurooncol. 2005 Oct;75(1):5-14
pubmed: 16215811
Acad Radiol. 2015 Sep;22(9):1191-8
pubmed: 26210525
Surg Neurol Int. 2013 May 02;4(Suppl 4):S209-19
pubmed: 23717792