Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2021
A Comparison of 3 T and 7 T MRI for the Clinical Evaluation of Uveal Melanoma.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tang Michael C Y, Jaarsma-Coes Myriam G, Ferreira Teresa A, Zwirs-Grech Fonk Lorna, Marinkovic Marina, Luyten Gregorius P M, Beenakker Jan-Willem M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly being used in the diagnosis and treatment planning of uveal melanoma (UM), the most common primary intraocular tumor. Initially, 7 T MRI was primarily used, but more recently these techniques have been translated to 3 T, as it is more commonly available.
PURPOSE: Compare the diagnostic performance of 3 T and 7 T MRI of UM.
STUDY TYPE: Prospective.
POPULATION: Twenty-seven UM patients (19% female).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T: T1- and T2-weighted three-dimensional (3D) spin echo (SE) and multi-slice (MS) SE, 7 T: T1-weighted 3D gradient echo (GE), T2-weighted 3D SE and MS SE, 3 T and 7 T GE dynamic contrast-enhanced. T1 weighted images: acquired before and after Gadolinium (Gd) administration.
ASSESSMENT: For all sequences, scan and diagnostic quality was quantified using a 5-point Likert scale. Signal intensities on T1 and T2 relative to choroid and eye muscle respectively were assessed as well as the tumor prominence. Finally, the perfusion time-intensity curves (TICs) were classified as plateau, progressive, or wash-out.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Image quality scores were compared between both field strengths using Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman were used for comparing tumor prominences. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Image quality was comparable between 3 T and 7 T, for 3DT1, 3DT2, 3DT1Gd (P = 0.86; P = 0.34; P = 0.78, respectively) and measuring tumor dimensions (P = 0.40). 2DT1 and 2DT2 image quality were rated better on 3 T compared to 7 T. Most UM had the same relative signal intensities at 3 T and 7 T on T1 (17/21) and T2 (13/17), and 16/18 diagnostic TICs received the same classification. Tumor prominence measurements were similar between field strengths (95% confidence interval: -0.37 mm to 0.03 mm, P = 0.097).
DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic performance of the evaluated 3 T protocol proved to be as capable as 7 T, with the addition of 3 T being superior in assessing tumor growth into nearby anatomical structures compared to 7 T.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.
PURPOSE: Compare the diagnostic performance of 3 T and 7 T MRI of UM.
STUDY TYPE: Prospective.
POPULATION: Twenty-seven UM patients (19% female).
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3 T: T1- and T2-weighted three-dimensional (3D) spin echo (SE) and multi-slice (MS) SE, 7 T: T1-weighted 3D gradient echo (GE), T2-weighted 3D SE and MS SE, 3 T and 7 T GE dynamic contrast-enhanced. T1 weighted images: acquired before and after Gadolinium (Gd) administration.
ASSESSMENT: For all sequences, scan and diagnostic quality was quantified using a 5-point Likert scale. Signal intensities on T1 and T2 relative to choroid and eye muscle respectively were assessed as well as the tumor prominence. Finally, the perfusion time-intensity curves (TICs) were classified as plateau, progressive, or wash-out.
STATISTICAL TESTS: Image quality scores were compared between both field strengths using Wilcoxon signed-rank and McNemar tests. Paired t-tests and Bland-Altman were used for comparing tumor prominences. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: Image quality was comparable between 3 T and 7 T, for 3DT1, 3DT2, 3DT1Gd (P = 0.86; P = 0.34; P = 0.78, respectively) and measuring tumor dimensions (P = 0.40). 2DT1 and 2DT2 image quality were rated better on 3 T compared to 7 T. Most UM had the same relative signal intensities at 3 T and 7 T on T1 (17/21) and T2 (13/17), and 16/18 diagnostic TICs received the same classification. Tumor prominence measurements were similar between field strengths (95% confidence interval: -0.37 mm to 0.03 mm, P = 0.097).
DATA CONCLUSION: Diagnostic performance of the evaluated 3 T protocol proved to be as capable as 7 T, with the addition of 3 T being superior in assessing tumor growth into nearby anatomical structures compared to 7 T.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 3.