Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Indian J Radiol Imaging 2015; 25(04): 353-358
DOI: 10.4103/0971-3026.169448
Pediatric Radiology

Pediatric whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: Intra-individual comparison of technical quality, artifacts, and fixed structure visibility at 1.5 and 3 T

Shyam Mohan
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children and Medical Imaging Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, India
,
Rahim Moineddin
Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Govind B Chavhan
Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children and Medical Imaging Department, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, India
› Author Affiliations Financial support and sponsorship Nil.
› Further Information
Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: To compare whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WBMRI) performed at 1.5 and 3 T for technical quality, artifacts, and visibility of selected fixed structures. Patients and Methods: 21 children who had WBMRI at both 1.5 and 3 T scanners within a relatively short interval (3-13 months; average-8.6 months) were included. The images were objectively compared with scores from 4 to 1 for five parameters including severity of artifacts; visibility of liver, vertebral column, and marrow in legs; and overall image quality. Inter-observer agreement was calculated using Kendall's coefficient of Concordance (W) and scores were compared using Signed Rank test. Results: There was substantial inter-observer agreement for all five categories at both field strengths. The difference between averages of mean scores of all five parameters for two field strengths was statistically significant (P < 0.05), indicating less artifact, better fixed structure visibility, and overall image quality at 1.5 T as compared to 3 T. However, scores at 3 T were also rated within a good range (around 3) indicating its feasibility for WBMRI in children. Conclusion: WBMRI at 1.5 T has significantly better image quality, fixed structure visibility, and fewer artifacts, as compared to WBMRI at 3 T in children. This difference is unlikely to significantly affect detection of pathology on 3 T WBMRI as the image quality score at 3 T was also within good range.

Keywords

1.5 T; - 3 T - artifacts - children - image quality - whole‑body magnetic resonance imaging


Publication History

Article published online:
30 July 2021

© 2015. Indian Radiological Association. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Private Ltd.
A-12, Second Floor, Sector -2, NOIDA -201301, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Chavhan GB, Babyn PS. Whole-body MR imaging in children: Principles, technique, current applications, and future directions. Radiographics 2011;31:1757-72.
  • 2 Monsalve J, Kapur J, Malkin D, Babyn PS. Imaging of cancer predisposition syndromes in children. Radiographics 2011;31:263-80.
  • 3 Fritz J, Tzaribatchev N, Claussen CD, Carrino JA, Horger MS. Chronic recurrent multifocal osteomyelitis: Comparison of whole-body MR imaging with radiography and correlation with clinical and laboratory data. Radiology 2009;252:842-51.
  • 4 Goo HW, Yang DH, Ra YS, Song JS, Im HJ, Seo JJ, et al. Whole-body MRI of Langerhans cell histiocytosis: Comparison with radiography and bone scintigraphy. Pediatr Radiol 2006;36:1019-31.
  • 5 Laffan EE, O'Connor R, Ryan SP, Donoghue VB. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging: A useful additional sequence in paediatric imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2004;34:472-80.
  • 6 Kellenberger CJ, Miller SF, Khan M, Gilday DL, Weitzman S, Babyn PS. Initial experience with FSE STIR whole-body MR imaging for staging lymphoma in children. Eur Radiol 2004;14:1829-41.
  • 7 Kellenberger CJ, Epelman M, Miller SF, Babyn PS. Fast STIR whole-body MR imaging in children. Radiographics 2004;24:1317-30.
  • 8 Kembhavi SA, Rangarajan V, Shah S, Qureshi S, Arora B, Juvekar S, et al. Prospective observational study on diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI in solid small round cell tumours. Clin Radiol 2014;69:900-8.
  • 9 Bannas P, Finck-Wedel AK, Buhk JH, Bley TA, Koops A, Kooijman H, et al. Comparison of whole body MR angiography at 1.5 and 3 Tesla in patients with hereditary hyperlipidemia. Acta Radiol 2011;52:547-53.
  • 10 Thieme SF, Dietrich O, Maxien D, Nikolaou K, Schoenberg SO, Reiser M, et al. Oxygen-enhanced MRI of the lungs: Intraindividual comparison between 1.5 and 3 Tesla. Rofo 2011;183:358-64.
  • 11 Yang PC, Nguyen P, Shimakawa A, Brittain J, Pauly J, Nishimura D, et al. Spiral magnetic resonance coronary angiography – Direct comparison of 1.5 Tesla vs 3 Tesla. J Cardiovasc Magn Reson 2004;6:877-84.
  • 12 Hinton DP, Wald LL, Pitts J, Schmitt F. Comparison of cardiac MRI on 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla clinical whole body systems. Invest Radiol 2003;38:436-42.
  • 13 Saremi F, Jalili M, Sefidbakht S, Channual S, Quane L, Naderi N, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the abdomen at 3 T: Image quality comparison with 1.5-T magnet using 3 different imaging sequences. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011;35:317-25.
  • 14 Schmidt GP, Wintersperger B, Graser A, Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser MF, Schoenberg SO. High-resolution whole-body magnetic resonance imaging applications at 1.5 and 3 Tesla: A comparative study. Invest Radiol 2007;42:449-59.
  • 15 Punwani S, Taylor SA, Bainbridge A, Prakash V, Bandula S, De Vita E, et al. Pediatric and adolescent lymphoma: Comparison of whole-body STIR half-Fourier RARE MR imaging with an enhanced PET/CT reference for initial staging. Radiology 2010;255:182-90.
  • 16 Mazumdar A, Siegel MJ, Narra V, Luchtman-Jones L. Whole-body fast inversion recovery MR imaging of small cell neoplasms in pediatric patients: A pilot study. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:1261-6.
  • 17 Kumar J, Seith A, Kumar A, Sharma R, Bakhshi S, Kumar R, et al. Whole-body MR imaging with the use of parallel imaging for detection of skeletal metastases in pediatric patients with small-cell neoplasms: Comparison with skeletal scintigraphy and FDG PET/CT. Pediatr Radiol 2008;38:953-62.
  • 18 Goo HW, Choi SH, Ghim T, Moon HN, Seo JJ. Whole-body MRI of paediatric malignant tumours: Comparison with conventional oncological imaging methods. Pediatr Radiol 2005;35:766-73.
  • 19 Darge K, Jaramillo D, Siegel MJ. Whole-body MRI in children: Current status and future applications. Eur J Radiol 2008;68:289-98.
  • 20 Hirsch W, Krohmer S, Kluge R, Krausse A, Sorge I. Preliminary results in whole-body MRI in children – A prospective study [abstr]. Pediatr Radiol 2005;35 Issue 2-Suppl:S89.
  • 21 Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, Singh M, Vidarsson L, Shroff M. MR imaging at 3.0 T in children: Technical differences, safety issues, and initial experience. Radiographics 2009;29:1451-66.