3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance imaging: A new standard in liver imaging?

Patient safety in magnetic resonance imaging

Image acquisition involves the use of static magnetic fields, field gradients and radiofrequency waves. These elements make the MRI a different modality. More and more centers work with 3.0 T equipment that present higher risks for the patient, compared to those of 1.5 T. Therefore, there is a need for updating for radiology staff that allows them to understand the risks and reduce them, since serious and even fatal incidents can occur. The objective of this work is to present a review and update of the risks to which patients are subjected during the performance of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study.

Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation of a Deep Learning-Accelerated, Single-Breath-Hold Abdominal HASTE at 1.5 T and 3 T

To evaluate the clinical performance of a deep learning-accelerated single-breath-hold half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin echo (HASTE_DL)-sequence for T2-weighted fat-suppressed MRI of the abdomen at 1.5 T and 3 T in comparison to standard T2-weighted fat-suppressed multi-shot turbo spin echo-sequence. A total of 320 patients who underwent a clinically indicated liver MRI at 1.5 T and 3 T between August 2020 and February 2021 were enrolled in this single-center, retrospective study. HASTE_DL and standard sequences were assessed regarding overall and organ-based image quality, noise, contrast, sharpness, artifacts, diagnostic confidence, as well as lesion detectability using a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 4 (4 = best). The number of visible lesions of each organ was counted and the largest diameter of the major lesion was measured. HASTE_DL showed excellent image quality (median 4, interquartile range 3-4), although BLADE (median 4, interquartile range 4-4) was rated significantly higher for overall and organ-based image quality of the adrenal gland (P < .001), contrast (P < 0.001), sharpness (P < 0.001), artifacts (P < 0.001), as well as diagnostic confidence (P < .001). No significant differences were found concerning noise (P = 0.886), organ-based image quality of the liver, pancreas, spleen, and kidneys (P = 0.120-0.366), number and measured diameter of the detected lesions (ICC = 0.972-1.0). Reduction of the aquisition time (TA) was at least 89% for 1.5 T images and 86% for 3 T images. HASTE_DL provided excellent image quality, good diagnostic confidence and lesion detection compared to a standard T2-sequences, allowing an eminent reduction of the acquisition time.

Potential of a Non-Contrast-Enhanced Abbreviated MRI Screening Protocol (NC-AMRI) in High-Risk Patients under Surveillance for HCC

PURPOSE

To evaluate NC-AMRI for the detection of HCC in high-risk patients.

METHODS

Patients who underwent yearly contrast-enhanced MRI (i.e., full MRI protocol) of the liver were included retrospectively. For all patients, the sequences that constitute the NC-AMRI protocol, namely diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), T2-weighted (T2W) imaging with fat saturation, and T1-weighted (T1W) in-phase and opposed-phase imaging, were extracted, anonymized, and uploaded to a separate research server and reviewed independently by three radiologists with different levels of experience. Reader I and III held a mutual training session. Levels of suspicion of HCC per patient were compared and the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) using the Mann-Whitney U test were calculated. The reference standard was a final diagnosis based on full liver MRI and clinical follow-up information.

RESULTS

Two-hundred-and-fifteen patients were included, 36 (16.7%) had HCC and 179 (83.3%) did not. The level of agreement between readers was reasonable to good and concordant with the level of expertise and participation in a mutual training session. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis showed relatively high AUC values (range 0.89-0.94). Double reading showed increased sensitivity of 97.2% and specificity of 87.2% compared with individual results (sensitivity 80.1%-91.7%-97.2%; specificity 91.1%-72.1%-82.1%). Only one HCC (2.8%) was missed by all readers.

CONCLUSION

NC-AMRI presents a good potential surveillance imaging tool for the detection of HCC in high-risk patients. The best results are achieved with two observers after a mutual training session.

Detection of hepatocellular carcinoma in a population at risk: iodine-enhanced multidetector CT and/or gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of iodine-enhanced multidetector CT and gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 Tesla (T) MRI for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma of patients.

DESIGN

Retrospective, multicentre cohort study.

SETTING

The Gong'an County People's Hospital, Gong'an County, China and the First People's Hospital of Jingzhou City, China.

PARTICIPANTS

Reports of CT, MRI and liver biopsies/histopathology data of a total of 815 patients who at risk were reviewed.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The lesions that possessed detection in the plain scan phase, enhanced arterial phase and/or enhanced portal phase of CT images and the lesions that possessed enhancements in the plain scan phase, enhanced arterial phase, enhanced portal phase and/or hepatobiliary phases of MRI were considered hepatocellular carcinoma. The decision of hepatocellular carcinoma was made based on the current Liver Imaging and Data Reporting System for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.

RESULTS

True positive hepatocellular carcinoma (563 vs 521, p=0.0314), true negative hepatocellular carcinoma (122 vs 91, p=0.0275), false positive hepatocellular carcinoma (88 vs 123, p=0.0121), false negative hepatocellular carcinoma (42 vs 80, p=0.0005), specificity (58.10 vs 42.52, p=0.0478) and negative clinical utility (0.1 vs 0.073, p=0.0386) were superior for gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI than those of iodine-enhanced multidetector CT. Sensitivity and accuracy for gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI were 93.06% and 77.40 %, respectively, and those for iodine-enhanced multidetector CT were 86.69% and 75.09 %, respectively. Likelihood to detect hepatocellular carcinoma for gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI was 0-0.894 diagnostic confidence/lesion, and that for iodine-enhanced multidetector CT was 0-0.887 diagnostic confidence/lesion.

CONCLUSION

Gadoxetic acid-enhanced 3.0 T MRI facilitates the confidence of initiation of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE

4.

3 T: the good, the bad and the ugly

It is around 20 years since the first commercial 3 T MRI systems became available. The theoretical promise of twice the signal-to-noise ratio of a 1.5 T system together with a greater sensitivity to magnetic susceptibility-related contrast mechanisms, such as the blood oxygen level dependent effect that is the basis for functional MRI, drove the initial market in neuroradiology. However, the limitations of the increased field strength soon became apparent, including the increased radiofrequency power deposition, tissue-dependent changes in relaxation times, increased artifacts, and greater safety concerns. Many of these issues are dependent upon MR physics and workarounds have had to be developed to try and mitigate their effects. This article reviews the underlying principles of the good, the bad and the ugly aspects of 3 T, discusses some of the methods used to improve image quality and explains the remaining challenges and concerns.

Intraoperative (Contrast-Enhanced) Ultrasound Has the Highest Diagnostic Accuracy of Any Imaging Modality in Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases

AIM

Defining sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy for detection of colorectal liver metastases in imaging compared to intraoperative assessment. Defining a cutoff, where accuracy of detection is impaired.

METHODS

Prospective single-institution clinical trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01522209). Patients underwent CEUS, MDCT, and 3 Tesla EOB-MRI within 2 weeks preoperatively. Intraoperative palpation, IOUS, and CEIOUS were performed. A patient and lesion-based database was analyzed for accuracy of detection of CEUS, CT, MRI, and Palp/IOUS/CEIOUS combined read. Histology was standard of reference.

RESULTS

Forty-seven high tumor load (mean 5, 4 lesions) patients were analyzed. Histopathology confirmed 264 lesions (245 malignant: 19 benign). Accuracy for detection of all lesions: CEUS 63%, CT 71%, MRI 92%, and PALP/IOUS/CEIOUS 98%. ROC analysis for lesion size showed severe impairment of accuracy in lesion detection smaller than 5mm. Intraoperative imaging was not impaired by lesion size. Patient-based analysis revealed a change of resection plan after IOUS/CEIOUS in 35% of patients.

CONCLUSION

At 5-mm lesion size, preoperative imaging shows a drop in accuracy of detection. In patients with multiple lesions, addition of MRI to MDCT seems useful. Accuracy of intraoperative ultrasound is not impacted by lesion size and should be mandatory. CEIOUS can improve intraoperative decision-making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study registered with clinicaltrials.gov : NCT01522209.

Comparison of Gadobenate-Enhanced MRI and Gadoxetate-Enhanced MRI for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Detection Using LI-RADS Version 2018: A Prospective Intraindividual Randomized Study

Background: Gadobenate and gadoxetate demonstrate different degrees of intracellular accumulation within hepatocytes, potentially impacting these agents' relative performance for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis. Objective: To perform an intraindividual comparison of gadobenate-enhanced MRI and gadoxetate-enhanced MRI for detection of HCC, and to assess the impact of inclusion of hepatobiliary phase images on HCC detection for both agents. Methods: This prospective study enrolled 126 patients (112 men, 14 women; mean age 52.3 years) at high risk for HCC who consented to undergo two 3-T liver MRI examinations [one using gadobenate (0.05 mmol/kg), one using gadoxetate (0.025 mmol/kg)], separated by 7-14 days. The order of the two contrast agents was randomized. All examinations included post-contrast dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images (120 minutes for gadobenate; 20 minutes for gadoxetate). Three radiologists independently reviewed the gadobenate and gadoxetate examinations in separate sessions and recorded the location of detected observations. Observations were classified using LI-RADS version 2018 and using a LI-RADS modification whereby hepatobiliary phase hypointensity may upgrade observations from LR-4 to LR-5. Observations classified as LR-5 were considered positive interpretations for HCC. Diagnostic performance for histologically confirmed HCC (n=96) was assessed. Results: Across readers, sensitivity for HCC using dynamic images alone was 74.0%-80.2% for gadobenate versus 54.2%-67.7% for gadoexetate and using dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images was 82.1%-87.4% for gadobenate versus 66.3%-81.1% for gadoxetate. For HCCs measuring 1.0-2.0 cm, sensitivity using dynamic images alone was 61.9% (all readers) for gadobenate versus 38.1%-57.1% for gadoxetate and using dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images was 76.2%-85.7% for gadobenate versus 52.4%-61.9% for gadoxetate. PPV for HCC ranged from 88.6%-97.4% across readers, agents, and image sets. Conclusion: Sensitivity for HCC was higher for gadobenate than for gadoxetate, whether using dynamic images alone or dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images; the improved sensitivity using gadobenate was more pronounced for small HCCs. While hepatobiliary phase images improved sensitivity for both agents, sensitivity of gadobenate using dynamic images alone compared favorably with that of gadoxetate using dynamic and hepatobiliary phase images. Clinical Impact: The findings support gadobenate as a preferred agent over gadoxetate when performing liver MRI in patients at high risk for HCC.

Biliary complications after liver transplantation: Assessment with MR cholangiopancreatography and MR imaging at 3T device

PURPOSE

Our study was aimed to assess the diagnostic value of MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and MR imaging at 3 T device when evaluating biliary adverse events after liver transplantation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A series of 384 MR examinations in 232 liver transplant subjects with suspected biliary complications (impaired liver function tests and/or biliary abnormalities on ultrasound) were performed at 3 T device (GE-DISCOVERY MR750; GE Healthcare). After the acquisition of axial 3D dual-echo T1-weighted images and T2-weighted sequences (propeller and SS-FSE), MRCP was performed through coronal thin-slab 3D-FRFSE and coronal oblique thick-slab SSFSE T2w sequences. DW-MRI of the liver was performed using an axial spin-echo echo-planar sequence with multiple b values (150, 500, 1000, 1500 s/mm²) in all diffusion directions. Contrast-enhanced MRCP was performed in 25/232 patients. All MR images were blindly evaluated by two experienced abdominal radiologists in consensus to determine the presence of biliary complications, whose final diagnosis was based on direct cholangiography, surgery and integrating clinical follow-up with ultrasound and/or MRI findings.

RESULTS

In 113 patients no biliary abnormality was observed. The remaining 119 subjects were affected by one or more of the following complications: non-anastomotic strictures including typical ischemic-type biliary lesions (n = 67), anastomotic strictures (n = 34), ampullary dysfunction (n = 4), anastomotic leakage (n = 4), stones, sludge and casts (n = 65), vanishing bile duct (n = 1). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy of the reviewers for the detection of all types of biliary complications were 99%, 96%, 95%, 99% and 97%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

MR cholangiopancreatography and MR imaging at 3 T device are extremely reliable for detecting biliary complications after liver transplantation.

LI-RADS technical requirements for CT, MRI, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound

Accurate detection and characterization of liver observations to enable HCC diagnosis and staging using LI-RADS requires a technically adequate imaging exam. To help achieve this objective, LI-RADS has proposed technical requirements for CT, MR, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound of liver. This article reviews the technical requirements for liver imaging, including the description of minimum acceptable technical standards, such as the scanner hardware requirements, recommended dynamic imaging phases, and common technical challenges of liver imaging.