Top

Published in:

01-11-2016 | Pictorial Essay

Interpreting body MRI cases: what you need to know to get started

Authors: Flavius F. Guglielmo, Leann M. Kania, Hassan M. Ahmad, Christopher G. Roth, Donald G. Mitchell

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 11/2016

Abstract

Interpreting body MRI cases can seem overwhelming to an uninitiated radiologist. The standard study includes a variety of pulse sequences, the names of which vary depending on the MR vendor. Pulse sequences may be displayed haphazardly on the picture archiving and communication system (PACS), frequently not synchronized with the imaging protocol. Adding to the complexity is the use of different gadolinium-based contrast agents, which may affect the timing and diagnostic yield of each sequence. The following introductory primer for interpreting body MRI cases is meant to create a basic framework for efficiently reviewing body MRI cases to provide high quality interpretations, fully utilizing the diagnostic information of the modality. There are 4 components that need to be mastered when interpreting body MRI cases including: (1) recognizing the key sequences in a basic body MRI protocol, (2) learning how to best display the key pulse sequences on PACS, (3) understanding the technique and clinical utility of each sequence and learning how to utilize sequences to be an “MR Pathologist”, and (4) understanding the key features of the different gadolinium based contrast agents.

Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. Am J Roentgenol 195:13–28CrossRef

Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG, Gupta S (2014) Gadolinium contrast agent selection and optimal use for body mr imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 52:637–656CrossRefPubMed

Ito K, Mitchell DG, Outwater EK, Szklaruk J, Sadek AG (1997) Hepatic lesions: discrimination of nonsolid, benign lesions from solid, malignant lesions with heavily T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 204:729–737CrossRefPubMed

Boyle GE, Ahern M, Cooke J, Sheehy NP, Meaney JF (2006) An interactive taxonomy of MR imaging sequences1. Radiographics 26:e24–e24CrossRefPubMed

Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG, Roth CG, Deshmukh S (2014) Hepatic MR imaging techniques, optimization, and artifacts. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:263–282CrossRefPubMed

Chang SD, Thoeni RF (2008) Effect of T1 shortening on T2-weighted MRI sequences: comparison of hepatic mass conspicuity on images acquired before and after gadolinium enhancement. Am J Roentgenol 190:1318–1323CrossRef

Jeong YY, Mitchell DG, Holland GA (2001) Liver lesion conspicuity: T2-weighted Breath-hold fast spin-echo MR imaging before and after gadolinium enhancement—initial experience1. Radiology 219:455–460CrossRefPubMed

Pokharel SS, Macura KJ, Kamel IR, Zaheer A (2013) Current MR imaging lipid detection techniques for diagnosis of lesions in the abdomen and pelvis. Radiographics 33(3):681–702CrossRefPubMed

Earls JP, Krinsky GA (1997) Abdominal and pelvic applications of opposed-phase MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:1071–1077CrossRefPubMed

10.

Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, et al. (1999) Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 19:373–382CrossRefPubMed

11.

Cassidy FH, Yokoo T, Aganovic L, et al. (2009) fatty liver disease: MR imaging techniques for the detection and quantification of liver steatosis 1. Radiographics 29:231–260CrossRefPubMed

12.

Merkle EM, Nelson RC (2006) Dual gradient-echo in-phase and opposed-phase hepatic mr imaging: a useful tool for evaluating more than fatty infiltration or fatty sparing 1. Radiographics 26:1409–1418CrossRefPubMed

13.

Bitar R, Leung G, Perng R, et al. (2006) MR pulse sequences: what every radiologist wants to know but is afraid to ask 1. Radiographics 26:513–537CrossRefPubMed

14.

Griffin N, Charles-Edwards G, Grant LA (2012) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: the ABC of MRCP. Insights Imaging 3:11–21CrossRefPubMed

15.

Takahashi S, Kim T, Murakami T, et al. (2000) Influence of paramagnetic contrast on single-shot MRCP image quality. Abdom Imaging 25:511–513CrossRefPubMed

16.

Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK (2012) Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol 57(2):421–429CrossRefPubMed

17.

Dietrich O, Biffar A, Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser MF (2010) Technical aspects of MR diffusion imaging of the body. Eur J Radiol 76:314–322CrossRefPubMed

18.

Koh D, Collins DJ (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. Am J Roentgenol 188:1622–1635CrossRef

19.

Malayeri AA, El Khouli RH, Zaheer A, et al. (2011) Principles and applications of diffusion-weighted imaging in cancer detection, staging, and treatment follow-up. Radiographics 31:1773–1791CrossRefPubMed

20.

Taouli B, Koh D (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver1. Radiology 254:47–66CrossRefPubMed

21.

Koh D, Takahara T, Imai Y, Collins DJ (2007) Practical aspects of assessing tumors using clinical diffusion-weighted imaging in the body. Magn Reson Med Sci 6:211–224CrossRefPubMed

22.

Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, et al. (2008) Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted mr imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging 1. Radiology 246:812–822CrossRefPubMed

23.

Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, Jankharia BG, Cheng HM, Shroff MM (2008) Steady-state MR imaging sequences: physics, classification, and clinical applications1. Radiographics 28:1147–1160CrossRefPubMed

24.

Hargreaves B (2004) Fast gradient echo sequences including balanced SSFP. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:857–864CrossRefPubMed

25.

Scheffler K, Lehnhardt S (2003) Principles and applications of balanced SSFP techniques. Eur Radiol 13:2409–2418CrossRefPubMed

26.

Graves MJ, Mitchell DG (2013) Body MRI artifacts in clinical practice: a physicist’s and radiologist’s perspective. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:269–287CrossRefPubMed

27.

Rescinito G, Sirlin C, Cittadini G Jr (2009) Body MRI artefacts: from image degradation to diagnostic utility. Radiol Med 114:18–31CrossRefPubMed

28.

Ma J (2004) Breath-hold water and fat imaging using a dual-echo two-point dixon technique with an efficient and robust phase-correction algorithm. Magn Reson Med 52:415–419CrossRefPubMed

29.

Ma J, Vu AT, Son JB, Choi H, Hazle JD (2006) Fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo dixon technique for contrast agent enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:36–41CrossRefPubMed

30.

Ma J (2008) Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:543–558CrossRefPubMed

31.

Hao D, Ai T, Goerner F, et al. (2012) MRI contrast agents: basic chemistry and safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1060–1071CrossRefPubMed

32.

van der Molen AJ, Bellin MF (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: differences in diagnostic efficacy. Eur J Radiol 66:168–174CrossRefPubMed

33.

Tweedle MF, Kanal E, Muller R (2014) Considerations in the selection of a new gadolinium-based contrast agent. Appl Radiol (Suppl):1–11

34.

Prince MR, Zhang HL, Roditi GH, Leiner T, Kucharczyk W (2009) Risk factors for NSF: a literature review. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1298–1308CrossRefPubMed

35.

Frydrychowicz A, Lubner MG, Brown JJ, et al. (2012) Hepatobiliary MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:492–511CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Hadizadeh DR, Gieseke J, Lohmaier SH, et al. (2008) Peripheral MR angiography with blood pool contrast agent: prospective intraindividual comparative study of high-spatial-resolution steady-state MR angiography versus standard-resolution first-pass MR angiography and DSA1. Radiology 249:701–711CrossRefPubMed

37.

Lewis M, Yanny S, Malcolm PN (2012) Advantages of blood pool contrast agents in MR angiography: a pictorial review. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56:187–191CrossRefPubMed

38.

Morcos S (2008) Extracellular gadolinium contrast agents: differences in stability. Eur J Radiol 66:175–179CrossRefPubMed

39.

Gandhi SN, Brown MA, Wong JG, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB (2006) MR contrast agents for liver imaging: what, when, how1. Radiographics 26:1621–1636CrossRefPubMed

40.

Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748CrossRefPubMed

41.

Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL (2011) Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics 31:1547–1568CrossRefPubMed

42.

Shellock FG, Parker JR, Pirovano G, et al. (2006) Safety characteristics of gadobenate dimeglumine: clinical experience from intra-and interindividual comparison studies with gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:1378–1385CrossRefPubMed

43.

Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S, et al. (2010) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries 1. Radiology 255:988–1000CrossRefPubMed

44.

Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, et al. (2006) Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Investig Radiol 41:213–221CrossRef

45.

Hussain HK, Londy FJ, Francis IR, et al. (2003) Hepatic arterial phase mr imaging with automated bolus-detection three-dimensional fast gradient-recalled-echo sequence: comparison with test-bolus method 1. Radiology 226:558–566CrossRefPubMed

46.

Mitchell D, Cohen M (2004) MRI principles. Philadelphia: Elsevier

47.

Semelka RC, Helmberger TKG (2001) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver1. Radiology 218:27–38CrossRefPubMed

48.

Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM, et al. (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology 266:452–461CrossRefPubMed

49.

American College of Radiology. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2014. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS/. Accessed 6 Mar 2016

50.

Klotz T, Montoriol P, Da Ines D, et al. (2013) Hepatic haemangioma: common and uncommon imaging features. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:849–859CrossRefPubMed

51.

Cogley JR, Miller FH (2014) MR imaging of benign focal liver lesions. Radiol Clin N Am 52:657–682CrossRefPubMed

52.

Siegelman ES, Chauhan A (2014) MR characterization of focal liver lesions: pearls and pitfalls. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:295–313CrossRefPubMed

53.

Péporté AR, Sommer WH, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Zech CJ (2013) Imaging features of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 82:e101–e106CrossRefPubMed

54.

Zhang P, Cui Y, Li W, et al. (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MR imaging for differentiating complex solid and cystic ovarian tumors at 1.5 T. World J Surg Oncol 10:237CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Ratcliffe GE, Kirkpatrick ID (2014) Anik Sahni V, Greenberg HM, Henderson B, Radulovic D, Mottola JC. Detection and localization of bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography: retrospective study of 16 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:518–525CrossRefPubMed

Title: Interpreting body MRI cases: what you need to know to get started
Authors: Flavius F. Guglielmo
Leann M. Kania
Hassan M. Ahmad
Christopher G. Roth
Donald G. Mitchell
Publication date: 01-11-2016
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Abdominal Radiology / Issue 11/2016
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0829-1

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2016

Myxoid hepatocellular neoplasms: imaging appearance of a unique mucinous tumor variant

Early-stage clear cell tubulopapillary renal cell carcinoma: imaging features and distinction from clear cell and papillary subtypes

Percutaneous radiologic gastrostomy catheter placement without gastropexy: a co-axial balloon technique and evaluation of safety and efficacy

MR comparative study of combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma in normal, fibrotic, and cirrhotic livers

Does IV contrast extravasation on CT in anticoagulant-related rectus sheath and iliopsoas hematoma predict hematoma expansion and patient outcomes?

Radiological appearances of corpus luteum cysts and their imaging mimics

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials