These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Utility of breath-hold fast-recovery fast spin-echo t2 versus respiratory-triggered fast spin-echo T2 in clinical hepatic imaging.
    Author: Huang J, Raman SS, Vuong N, Sayre JW, Lu DS.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2005 Mar; 184(3):842-6. PubMed ID: 15728606.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare a breath-hold fat-suppressed fast-recovery fast spin-echo (FSE) T2-weighted sequence with a respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted sequence to assess the effect on image quality and lesion detection and characterization in clinical hepatic imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Both the breath-hold fat-suppressed fast-recovery FSE and respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted sequences were acquired in 46 patients. Two radiologists, blinded to clinical data, independently evaluated randomized images from both sequences. Qualitatively, images were graded on a 5-point scale for five different characteristics. The number and location of lesions were recorded. The confidence of detection and the confidence of characterization (solid vs nonsolid) were graded on a 5-point scale. A consensus review using radiology, clinical, and pathology data served as the standard. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis (area under the ROC curve [A(z)]) was used to compare each reviewer's interpretation against the consensus interpretation. Quantitative analysis was performed by calculating the liver signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), liver-to-spleen contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and lesion-to-liver CNR. Both one- and two-tailed Student's t tests were used to check for significance. RESULTS: Qualitatively, both reviewers graded the breath-hold fat-suppressed fast-recovery FSE T2-weighted sequence better than the respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted sequence on all five characteristics (p < 0.005). Of 78 lesions detected, 29 were characterized as solid; 47, nonsolid; and two, indeterminate. On ROC analysis, there were no significant differences between the breath-hold fat-suppressed fast-recovery FSE and respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted sequences in lesion detection (A(z) reviewer 1, 0.77 and 0.83, respectively, [p = 0.12]; A(z) reviewer 2, 0.84 and 0.80, respectively [p = 0.12]) or in lesion characterization (A(z) reviewer 1, 0.86 and 0.92, respectively [p = 0.33]; A(z) reviewer 2, 0.90 and 0.91, respectively [p = 0.79]). Quantitatively, liver SNRs, spleen CNRs, and lesion CNRs (solid and nonsolid lesions) were significantly better on the breath-hold fat-suppressed fast-recovery FSE T2-weighted images than on the respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted images (p < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Breath-hold fat-suppressed fast-recovery FSE T2-weighted images were of better quality than respiratory-triggered fat-suppressed FSE T2-weighted images, and lesion detection and characterization were comparable.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]