Combined acquisition of diffusion and T2*-weighted measurements using simultaneous multi-contrast magnetic resonance imaging

2.5-Minute Fast Brain MRI with Multiple Contrasts in Acute Ischemic Stroke

PURPOSE

To assess the performance of a 2.5-minute multi-contrast brain MRI sequence (NeuroMix) in diagnosing acute cerebral infarctions.

METHODS

Adult patients with a clinical suspicion of acute ischemic stroke were retrospectively included. Brain MRI at 3 T included NeuroMix and routine clinical MRI (cMRI) sequences, with DWI/ADC, T2-FLAIR, T2-weighted, T2*, SWI-EPI, and T1-weighted contrasts. Three radiologists (R1-3) independently assessed NeuroMix and cMRI for the presence of acute infarcts (DWI ↑, ADC = or ↓) and infarct-associated abnormalities on other image contrasts. Sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated and compared using DeLong's test. Inter- and intra-rater agreements were studied with kappa statistics. Relative DWI (rDWI) and T2-FLAIR (rT2-FLAIR) signal intensity for infarctions were semi-automatically rendered, and the correlation between methods was evaluated.

RESULTS

According to the reference standard, acute infarction was present in 34 out of 44 (77%) patients (63 ± 17 years, 31 men). Other infarct-associated signal abnormalities were reported in similar frequencies on NeuroMix and cMRI (p > .08). Sensitivity for infarction detection was 94%, 100%, and 94% evaluated by R1, R2, R3, for NeuroMix and 94%, 100%, and 100% for cMRI. Specificity was 100%, 90%, and 100% for NeuroMix and 100%, 100%, and 100% for cMRI. AUC for NeuroMix was .97, .95, and .97 and .97, 1, and 1 for cMRI (DeLong p = 1, .32, .15), respectively. Inter- and intra-rater agreement was κ = .88-1. The correlation between NeuroMix and cMRI was R = .73 for rDWI and R = .83 for rT2-FLAIR.

CONCLUSION

Fast multi-contrast MRI NeuroMix has high diagnostic performance for detecting acute cerebral infarctions.

The role of medical physicists in clinical trials across Europe

INTRODUCTION

The roles and responsibilities of medical physicists (MPs) are growing together with the evolving science and technology. The complexity of today's clinical trials requires the skills and knowledge of MPs for their safe and efficient implementation. However, it is unclear to what extent the skillsets offered by MPs are being exploited in clinical trials across Europe.

METHODS

The EFOMP Working Group on the role of Medical Physics Experts in Clinical Trials has designed a survey that targeted all 36 current National Member Organisations, receiving a response from 31 countries. The survey included both quantitative and qualitative queries regarding the involvement of MPs in trial design, setup, and coordination, either as trial team members or principal investigators.

RESULTS

The extent of MPs involvement in clinical trials greatly varies across European countries. The results showed disparities between the roles played by MPs in trial design, conduct or data processing. Similarly, differences among the 31 European countries that responded to the survey were found regarding the existence of national bodies responsible for trials or the available training offered to MPs. The role of principal investigator or co-investigator was reported by 12 countries (39%), a sign of efficient collaboration with medical doctors in designing and implementing clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Organisation of specific training courses and guideline development for clinical trial design and conduct would encourage the involvement of a larger number of MPs in all stages of trials across Europe, leading to a better standardisation of clinical practice.