Characterization of adrenal lesions on chemical shift MRI: comparison of 1.5 T and 3 T MRI
- 33 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAdrenal 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.
Written informed consent was obtained from all patients included in the study.
- 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
- 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.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
- 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.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
- 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
- 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