Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 44, Issue 10, pp 3359–3369 | Cite as

Characterization of adrenal lesions on chemical shift MRI: comparison of 1.5 T and 3 T MRI

  • İlhan HekimsoyEmail author
  • Ezgi Güler
  • Mustafa Harman
  • Nevra Elmas
Kidneys, Ureters, Bladder, Retroperitoneum



To compare three chemical shift MRI techniques [two-dimensional (2D) dual gradient echo (dGRE), 3D VIBE, and 3D VIBE-Dixon] at 3 T and 2D dGRE technique at 1.5 T to assess their ability of detecting microscopic fat in adrenal adenomas and differentiating between adenomas and non-adenomas.


Seventy-eight patients with 97 lesions (78 adenomas, 19 non-adenomas) underwent both 1.5 T and 3 T chemical shift MRI. The Wilcoxon signed-ranked test was used to determine if there was significant difference between the signal intensity index (SII) values of each technique to assess their ability to detect microscopic fat in adrenal adenomas. ROC analysis was performed for the SII values of each technique, the adrenal-to-spleen SI ratio of 2D dGRE technique at 3 T, and the fat fraction values of the 3D VIBE-Dixon technique to identify the optimal threshold for differentiation of adrenal adenomas from non-adenomas.


For detection of microscopic fat, the mean SII value of 2D dGRE technique at 1.5 T was significantly higher than that of the chemical shift imaging techniques at 3 T (p = 0.001). For discrimination of adenomas from non-adenomas, the area under the curve (AUC) and 95% confidence interval values of 2D dGRE technique at 1.5 T and 2D dGRE, 3D VIBE, 3D VIBE-Dixon techniques at 3 T were calculated as 1.00 (1.00–1.00), 0.991 (0.978–1.00), 0.999 (0.995–1.00), 0.993 (0.979–1.00), respectively, for the SII.


Chemical shift MRI at 1.5 T using the 2D dGRE technique provided the most accurate differentiation between adenomas and non-adenomas. However, there was no statistically significant difference between chemical shift imaging techniques at 1.5 T and 3 T.


Adrenal adenoma Adrenal glands Chemical shift imaging MRI 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Institutional review board

The institutional review board approved this single-center, prospective, clinical study.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Boland GW, Blake MA, Hahn PF, Mayo-Smith WW (2008) Incidental adrenal lesions: principles, techniques, and algorithms for imaging characterization. Radiology 249(3):756-775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dunnick NR, Korobkin M (2002) Imaging of adrenal incidentalomas: current status. AJR Am J Roentgenol 179(3):559-568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bovio S, Cataldi A, Reimondo G, et al. (2006) Prevalence of adrenal incidentaloma in a contemporary computerized tomography series. J Endocrinol Invest 29(4):298-302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Song JH, Chaudhry FS, Mayo-Smith WW (2008) The incidental adrenal mass on CT: prevalence of adrenal disease in 1,049 consecutive adrenal masses in patients with no known malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(5):1163-1168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blake MA, Cronin CG, Boland GW (2010) Adrenal imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(6):1450-1460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Savci G, Yazici Z, Sahin N, Akgoz S, Tuncel E (2006) Value of chemical shift subtraction MRI in characterization of adrenal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(1):130-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marin D, Soher BJ, Dale BM, Boll DT, Youngblood RS, Merkle EM (2010) Characterization of adrenal lesions: comparison of 2D and 3D dual gradient-echo MR imaging at 3 T--preliminary results. Radiology 254(1):179-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ream JM, Gaing B, Mussi TC, Rosenkrantz AB (2015) Characterization of adrenal lesions at chemical-shift MRI: a direct intraindividual comparison of in- and opposed-phase imaging at 1.5 T and 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 204(3):536-541.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Adam SZ, Nikolaidis P, Horowitz JM, et al. (2016) Chemical Shift MR Imaging of the Adrenal Gland: Principles, Pitfalls, and Applications. Radiographics 36(2):414-432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Soher BJ, Dale BM, Merkle EM (2007) A review of MR physics: 3 T versus 1.5 T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15(3):277-290, v.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Merkle EM, Schindera ST (2007) MR imaging of the adrenal glands: 1.5 T versus 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15(3):365-372, vii.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schindera ST, Soher BJ, Delong DM, Dale BM, Merkle EM (2008) Effect of echo time pair selection on quantitative analysis for adrenal tumor characterization with in-phase and opposed-phase MR imaging: initial experience. Radiology 248(1):140-147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Marin D, Dale BM, Bashir MR, et al. (2012) Effectiveness of a three-dimensional dual gradient echo two-point Dixon technique for the characterization of adrenal lesions at 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol 22(1):259-268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Nakamura S, Namimoto T, Morita K, et al. (2012) Characterization of adrenal lesions using chemical shift MRI: comparison between 1.5 Tesla and two echo time pair selection at 3.0 Tesla MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 35(1):95-102.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Song J, Zhang C, Liu Q, et al. (2012) Utility of chemical shift and diffusion-weighted imaging in characterization of hyperattenuating adrenal lesions at 3.0T. Eur J Radiol 81(9):2137-2143.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fujiyoshi F, Nakajo M, Fukukura Y, Tsuchimochi S (2003) Characterization of adrenal tumors by chemical shift fast low-angle shot MR imaging: comparison of four methods of quantitative evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 180(6):1649-1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Merkle EM, Dale BM (2006) Abdominal MRI at 3.0 T: the basics revisited. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186(6):1524-1532.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    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. Radiographics 26(5):1409-1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    von Falkenhausen MM, Lutterbey G, Morakkabati-Spitz N, et al. (2006) High-field-strength MR imaging of the liver at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparative study with MR imaging at 1.5 T. Radiology 241(1):156-166.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ho LM, Paulson EK, Brady MJ, Wong TZ, Schindera ST (2008) Lipid-poor adenomas on unenhanced CT: does histogram analysis increase sensitivity compared with a mean attenuation threshold? AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(1):234-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Song JH, Chaudhry FS, Mayo-Smith WW (2007) The incidental indeterminate adrenal mass on CT (> 10 H) in patients without cancer: is further imaging necessary? Follow-up of 321 consecutive indeterminate adrenal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189(5):1119-1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gupta RT, Ho LM, Marin D, Boll DT, Barnhart HX, Nelson RC (2010) Dual-energy CT for characterization of adrenal nodules: initial experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194(6):1479-1483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shinozaki K, Yoshimitsu K, Honda H, et al. (2001) Metastatic adrenal tumor from clear-cell renal cell carcinoma: a pitfall of chemical shift MR imaging. Abdom Imaging 26(4):439-442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sydow BD, Rosen MA, Siegelman ES (2006) Intracellular lipid within metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma of the adrenal gland: a potential diagnostic pitfall of chemical shift imaging of the adrenal gland. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187(5):W550-W551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • İlhan Hekimsoy
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ezgi Güler
    • 1
  • Mustafa Harman
    • 1
  • Nevra Elmas
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyEge University School of MedicineIzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations