Journal of Radiation Industry (방사선산업학회지)

Korean Society of Radiation Industry (한국방사선산업학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Image Comparison of Heavily T2 FLAIR and DWI Method in Brain Magnetic Resonance Image

뇌 자기공명영상에서 Heavily T2 FLAIR와 DWI 기법의 영상비교

  • EunHoe Goo (Department of Radiological Science, Cheongju University)
  • 구은회 (청주대학교 보건의료과학대학 방사선학과)
  • Received : 2023.11.01
  • Accepted : 2023.12.06
  • Published : 2023.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to obtain brain MRI images through Heavenly T2 FLAIR and DWI techniques to find out strengths and weaknesses of each image. Data were analyzed on 13 normal people and 17 brain tumor patients. Philips Ingenia 3.0TCX was used as the equipment used for the inspection, and 32 Channel Head Coil was used to acquire data. Using Image J and Infinity PACS Data, 3mm2 of gray matter, white matter, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and tumor areas were set and measured. Quantitative analysis measured SNR and CNR as an analysis method, and qualitative analysis evaluated overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, image distortion, susceptibility artifact and ghost artifact on a 5-point scale. The statistical significance of data analysis was that Wilcox-on Signed Rank Test and Paired t-test were executed, and the statistical program used was SPSS ver.22.0 and the p value was less than 0.05. In quantitative analysis, the SNR of gray matter, white matter, cerebellum, basal ganglia, and tumor of Heavily T2 FLAIR is 41.45±0.13, 40.52±0.45, 41.44±0.51, 40.96±0.09, 35.28±0.46 and the CNR is 15.24±0.13, 16.75±0.23, 16.28±0.41, 15.83±0.17, 16.63±0.51. In DWI, SNR is 32.58±0.22, 36.75±0.17, 30.21±0.19, 35.83±0.11, 43.29±0.08, and CNR is 13.14±0.63, 14.21±0.31, 12.95±0.32, 11.73±0.09, 17.56±0.52. In normal tissues, Heavenly T2 FLAIR obtained high results, but in disease evaluation, high results were obtained at DWI, b=1000 (p<0.05). In addition, in the qualitative analysis, overall image quality, lesion conspicuity, image distortion, susceptibility artifact and ghost artifact aspects of the Heavily T2 FLAIR were evaluated, and 3.75±0.28, 2.29±0.24, 3.86±0.23, 4.08±0.21, 3.79±0.22 values were found, respectively, and 2.53±0.39, 4.13±0.29, 1.90±0.20, 1.81±0.21, 1.52±0.45 in DWI. As a result of qualitative analysis, overall image quality, image distortion, susceptibility artifact and ghost artifact were rated higher than DWI. However, DWI was evaluated higher in lesion conspicuity (p<0.05). In normal tissues, the level of Heavenly T2 FLAIR was higher, but the DWI technique was higher in the evaluation of the disease (tumor). The two results were necessary techniques depending on the normal site and the location of the disease. In conclusion, statistically significant results were obtained from the two techniques. In quantitative and qualitative analysis, the two techniques had advantages and disadvantages, and in normal and disease evaluation, the two techniques produced useful results. These results are believed to be educational data for clinical basic evaluation and MRI in the future.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim JH, Heo SH, Shin SS and Jeong YY. 2021. MRI Findings and Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Tumors of the Uterine Corpus. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 82(5):1103-1123. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2021.0116.
  2. Kang EJ, Choi SS, Jo JH, Kang MJ, Ha DH and Nam KJ. 2010. Chronological Changes of the Signal Intensities of White Matter on the FLAIR Images of Infants. J. Korean Soc. Radiol 62(5):411-419. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2010.62.5.411.
  3. Lee YM, Kim H, Ahn CB, Yoo MS, Kim SY, Kang SH and Im JS. 2012. Brain Diffusion-Weighted MRI: Comparison of Tetrahedral Versus Orthogonal Diffusion Brain. KSMRT 22(1):73-74.
  4. Kim KM, Jang JH, Lee HJ, Lee MJ and Kim DY. 2019. Usefulness Study of Computed High b-value Diffusion Weighted Image in Comparison to Acquired High b-value Diffusion Weighted Image in Brain Diffusion Image. KSMRT 29(1):1-10. https://doi.org/10.31159/ksmrt.2019.29.1.1.
  5. Park JB. 2023. A Study of the Use of the Sensitivity Encoding Factor to Reduce Magnetic Susceptibility Artifacts in Brain Stem Diffusion-Weighted Imaging. KSMRT 31(1):9-26.
  6. Holdsworth SJ, Yeom KW, Antonucci MU, Andre JB, Rosenberg J and Aksoy M. 2014. Diffusion-weighted imaging with dual-echo echo-planar imaging for better sensitivity to acute stroke. AJNR Am. J. Neuroradiol. 35(7):1293-1302. https://doi.org/10.3174/ajnr.A3921.
  7. Tsubouchi Y, Itamura S, Saito Y, Yamashita E, Shinohara Y, Okazaki T, Ohno K, Nishimura Y, Oguri M and Maegaki Y. 2018. Use of high b value diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in acute encephalopathy/encephalitis during childhood. Brain Dev. 40(2):116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.braindev.2017.07.012.
  8. Nam KI, Han KS, Cho HJ, Moon SW, Choi SH and Lee BC. 2013. Clinical Features of Patients with False Negative Diffusion-weighted MR Findings in Acute Ischemic Stroke. JKSEM 24(4):396-402.
  9. Hong IK, Park MJ, Kang SH and Lee YJ. 2021. Noise Level Evaluation According to Slice Thickness Change in Magnetic Resonance T2 Weighted Image of Multiple Sclerosis Disease. KSRS 44(4):327-333. https://doi.org/10.17946/JRST.2021.44.4.327.
  10. Son SY, Choi KW, Min JW, Son JH, Kim KW, Jung JH and Jeong HW. 2013. Evaluation of quantitative on T-spine exhalation technique and T-spine breathing technique of natural breathing. JKAIS 14(9):4429-4436. https://doi.org/10.5762/KAIS.2013.14.9.4429.
  11. Park JE and Kim HS. 2020. Current Applications and Future Perspectives of Brain Tumor Imaging. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 81(3): 467-487. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2020.81.3.467.
  12. Byun JH, Park MH and Lee JW. 2014. Patients with brain metastases the usefulness of contrast-enhanced FLAIR images after delay. KJDIM 16(1):13-19.
  13. Cho E, Kang MJ and Kim SH. 2016. Isolated Acute Nontraumatic Cortical Subarachnoid Hemorrhage: Etiologies Based on MRI Findings. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 74(6):380-388. https://doi.org/10.3348/jksr.2016.74.6.380.
  14. Lee WJ, Ahn BS and Park YS. 2012. Radiation Dose and Image Quality of Low-dose Protocol in Chest CT: Comparison of Standard-dose Protocol. J. Radiati. Prot. 37(2):84-89. https://doi.org/10.14407/jrp.2012.37.2.084.
  15. Roh TG and Cho YK. 2020. A Study on the Usability of Echo Planar Image T2 FLAIR Sequence in the MRI of Acute Ischemic Cerebral Infarction. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 14(7):957-964. https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2020.14.7.957.
  16. Kim JT, Byun JH, Park YS, Lee RG, Hwang SK. 2015. Usefulness of the High B-value DWI in Brain Tumors. KJDIM 17(1):33-41.
  17. Sant'Ovaia H, Marques G, Santos A, Gomes C and Rocha A. 2015. Magnetic susceptibility and isothermal remanent magnetization in human tissues: a study case. Biometals 28(6):951-958. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10534-015-9879-z.
  18. Zhao Y, Yan X, Zhang Z, Zhao W, Liu Z and Li J. 2019. Self-adapting multi-peak water-fat reconstruction for the removal of lipid artifacts in chemicalexchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging. Magn. Reson. Med. 82(5):1700-1712. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.27859.
  19. Goo EH. 2021. Evaluation of Image Quality using SE-EPI and SSH-TSE Techniques in MRDWI. J. Korean Soc. Radiol. 15(7):991-998. https://doi.org/10.7742/jksr.2021.15.7.991.
  20. Kirchgesner T, Perlepe V, Michoux N, Larbi A and Berg B. 2017. Fat suppression at 2D MR imaging of the hands: Dixon method versus CHESS technique and STIR sequence. Eur. J. Radiol. 89:40-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.01.011.
  21. Goo EH and Dong KR. 2016. Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation of Brain Diffusion Weighted Magnetic Resonance Imaging:Comparision with 1.5 T and 3.0 T Units. J. Radiat. Ind. 10(4):227-230.
  22. Zeng Q, Dong F, Shi F, Ling C, Jiang B and Zhang J. 2017. Apparent diffusion coefficient maps obtained from high b value diffusion-weighted imaging in the preoperative evaluation of gliomas at 3T: comparison with standard b value diffusion-weighted imaging. Eur. Radiol. 27(12):5309-5315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4910-0.