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: Prospective Comparison of FOCUS MUSE and Single-Shot Echo-Planar Imaging for Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Evaluating Thyroid-Associated Ophthalmopathy.
    Author: Wang Y, Cui Y, Dai J, Ni S, Zhang T, Chen X, Jiang Q, Cheng Y, Ma Y, Li T, Xiao Y.
    Journal: Korean J Radiol; 2024 Oct; 25(10):913-923. PubMed ID: 39344548.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To prospectively compare single-shot (SS) echo-planar imaging (EPI) and field-of-view optimized and constrained undistorted single-shot multiplexed sensitivity-encoding (FOCUS MUSE) for diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) in evaluating thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy (TAO). MATERIALS AND METHODS: SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs were obtained from 39 patients with TAO (18 male; mean ± standard deviation: 48.3 ± 13.3 years) and 26 healthy controls (9 male; mean ± standard deviation: 43.0 ± 18.5 years). Two radiologists scored the visual image quality using a 4-point Likert scale. The image quality score, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of extraocular muscles (EOMs) were compared between the two DWIs. Differences in the ADC of EOMs were also evaluated. The performance of discriminating active from inactive TAO was assessed using receiver operating characteristic curves. The correlation between ADC and clinical activity score (CAS) was analyzed using Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated significantly higher image quality scores (P < 0.001), a higher SNR and CNR on the lateral rectus muscle (LRM) and medial rectus muscle (MRM) (P < 0.05), and a non-significant difference in the ADC of the LRM and MRM. Active TAO showed higher ADC than inactive TAO and healthy controls with both SS EPI and FOCUS MUSE DWIs (P < 0.001). Inactive TAO and healthy controls did not show a significant ADC difference with both DWIs. Compared with SS EPI DWI, FOCUS MUSE DWI demonstrated better discrimination of active from inactive TAO (AUC: 0.925 vs. 0.779; P = 0.007). The ADC was significantly correlated with CAS in SS EPI DWI (r = 0.391, P < 0.001) and FOCUS MUSE DWI (r = 0.645, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: FOCUS MUSE DWI provides better images for evaluating EOMs and better performance in diagnosing active TAO than SS EPI DWI. The application of FOCUS MUSE will facilitate the DWI evaluation of TAO.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]