Farah Al-Rawi1, Elena Trajcevska1, Dinesh Gooneratne1, Windell Ang1, Yuliya Perchyonok1,2, Greg Fitt1, Andrew Kemp1, Shivraman Giri3, Davide Piccini4, Amy Brodtmann5, Helen Dewey6, Ioannis Koktzoglou7, and Ruth P Lim1,2
1Radiology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia, 2The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 3Siemens Healthcare, Chicago, IL, United States, 4Siemens Healthcare, Lausanne, Switzerland, 5Neurology, Austin Health, Melbourne, Australia, 6Neurology, Eastern Health, Melbourne, Australia, 7Radiology, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, United States
Synopsis
A Non-enhanced Hybrid Arterial Spin Labeling MRA
(NoHASL) technique for assessment of the intracranial arteries was evaluated.
30 patients with known/suspected cerebral ischemia underwent time of flight MRA
(TOF), NoHASL, and contrast enhanced MRA (CE-MRA). 21 arterial segments per
patient were assessed by 2 neuroradiologists for image quality and
haemodynamically significant stenosis. Overall image quality scores were
diagnostic for all three sequences, with NoHASL and CE-MRA performing better
for proximal intracranial segments, and TOF MRA performing better for smaller caliber
arteries.Target Audience:
Clinicians, basic
scientists and MRI technologists interested in stroke and cerebrovascular
imaging.
Purpose:
Time of Flight MRA (TOF)
is currently used for intracranial artery assessment in patients with cerebrovascular
disease. However, dephasing from slow/ turbulent flow and motion-related
artifacts may impact TOF image quality and accuracy(1,2,3). Recently, a Non-enhanced
Hybrid Arterial Spin Labeling MRA (NoHASL) technique has
been described for the extracranial carotid arteries(4). It combines pseudocontinuous and
pulsed arterial spin labelling, an undersampled 3D radial trajectory and a
balanced steady-state free precession readout to maximise arterial contrast, coverage
and robustness to motion. Our purpose was to evaluate feasibility, image
quality and diagnostic assessment of NoHASL for the intracranial arteries in patients,
with comparison to TOF and contrast enhanced MRA (CE-MRA).
Methods:
30 patients (20M, 10F,
mean 65y, range 21-91y) referred for MRI for known/ suspected cerebral ischemia
underwent intracranial TOF, prototype NoHASL and CE-MRA at 1.5T (Avanto,
Siemens Healthcare GmbH) during a single visit. 3D TOF (MOTSA) parameters were:
TR/TE 23/7 ms, FA 25°, true voxel size 0.7x0.7x1.4mm3, FOV 180 x 180
mm, 3 slabs, 40 slices per slab, slice partial Fourier 7/8, acceleration factor
2 (GRAPPA), TA 3:29 minutes. NoHASL parameters were: TR/TE 3000/2.0 ms, echo
spacing 3.9ms, FA 90°, true voxel size 0.8x0.8x0.8mm3, FOV 210 mm, TA
4:54 minutes, slices per slab 256, 7680 radial views, pseudocontinuous labeling
duration 2000ms, post label delay 300ms. CE-MRA was performed from aortic arch to
the circle of Willis: TR/TE 2.8/1.2 ms, FA 25°, true voxel size 0.9x0.8x1.1 mm3,
FOV 410 x 308 mm, 120 partitions, 6/8 slice and phase partial Fourier, acceleration
factor 3 (GRAPPA), TA 24s, using gadoterate meglumine (Dotarem, Aspen
Pharmacare), 0.2ml/kg at 2ml/s.
Anonymized
NoHASL, TOF and CE-MRA images were independently interpreted by two
neuroradiologists (R1 & R2) on a PACS workstation (Impax, Agfa). 21
segments were assessed per subject (petrous ICA and intradural vertebral
arteries to A2, M2 and P2 segments). Image quality (IQ) was scored (1=non-diagnostic,
3=sufficient for diagnosis, 5=excellent). Degree of stenosis was scored as
non-significant (0-49%) and hemodynamically significant 50-100%. The reference
standard was a consensus read of all 3 sequences by both raters. Mean±SD IQ for
each sequence was compared with the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Sensitivity / specificity
and inter-rater agreement (kappa statistics) for haemodynamically significant stenosis
were calculated.
Results:
All patients
successfully completed all sequences. Overall IQ scores were diagnostic for all
sequences: NoHASL 3.32±0.86, TOF 3.48±0.68 and CE-MRA 3.44±0.78, with mean TOF and CE-MRA scores both higher than NoHASL (p<0.01).
At the segmental level, NoHASL performed well for the intracranial ICA, basilar
artery and M1 segments, but mean IQ scores were below 3 (not sufficient for
diagnosis) for smaller caliber vessels (Fig 1), largely due to low SNR and
bright CSF signal. Reasons for TOF IQ scores < 3 were flow saturation, Venetian
blind artifact and low SNR. Low SNR and small caliber vessels were cited as
reasons for poor IQ scores <3 for CE-MRA.
Of 630 total arterial segments, 14
haemodynamically significant stenoses were detected at the reference standard
(Fig 2 & 3). 5/14 stenoses
were attributed to one motion-degraded study, with low SNR recorded for NoHASL
and CE-MRA. For R1, NoHASL
sensitivity/specificity for stenosis detection was 71.4%/84.4%, TOF 71.4%/96.6%
and CE-MRA 42.9%/97.9%. For R2, NoHASL sensitivity/specificity was 64.3%/95.6%,
TOF 64.3%/98.9% and 57.1%/99.5% for CE-MRA. When combining both raters the
sensitivity/specificity for NoHASL, TOF and CE-MRA was 67.9%/90%, 67.9%/97.7%
and 50%/98.7% respectively. There was no statistically significant difference
detected in accuracy between sequences. There was fair inter-rater agreement
for all three sequences, with kappa values of 0.30 (NoHASL), 0.37
(TOF) and 0.24 (CE-MRA).
Discussion/Conclusion:
NoHASL MRA is feasible, providing diagnostic
quality imaging of proximal intracranial vessels. However, image quality was lower
than TOF, particularly for smaller caliber vessels, largely due to poor SNR. Although
no differences in accuracy were observed between sequences, there was low prevalence
of steno-occlusive disease in the subjects studied. Our study also highlights
the challenges of intracranial artery stenosis assessment, with only fair inter-rater
agreement for all 3 techniques. Further NoHASL parameter optimization and
implementation at 3T for greater SNR may improve its performance.
Acknowledgements
No acknowledgement found.References
1.
Heiserman et al. Radiology
1992,185:667-673.
2. Bash et
al. AJNR
Am J Neuroradiol 2005; 26: 1012–1021.
3. Lewin & Laub. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1991;12:1133–9.
4. Koktzoglou I et al. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
2014.