In a prospective randomized study, we compared the image quality of a synthetized T2 with conventional turbo spin echo T2 during pediatric brain MRI. According to several assessment criteria, synthetic T2 seemed to be an overall equivalent to standard TSE T2, with the advantage of new available T2 quantitative data with a similar acquisition time.
Methods
This was a mono-center prospective study. Synthetic and conventional MRI acquisitions at 1.5 Tesla (MAGNETOM Aera, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) were performed for each patient during the same session using a prototype accelerated T2-mapping sequence package (TAsynthetic=3:07 min, TAconventional=2:33 min). Image sets were blindly and randomly analyzed by senior and fellow pediatric neuroradiologists. Global image quality, morphologic legibility of standard structures and artifacts were assessed using a 4-point Likert scale. Inter-observer kappa agreements were calculated. The capability of the synthesized contrasts and conventional T2 TSE to discern normal and pathologic cases was evaluated.Synthetic T2 contrasts seem to be an overall equivalent to standard TSE T2 for clinical practice in pediatric neuroradiology, after awareness of the rise of some artifacts. Those artifacts were easily recognizable, very similar from one patient to another, and differ considerable from anatomy not to be confounded with pathological conditions. The major benefit of this technique is to provide quantitative information on the inherent tissue relaxation. That could be used to build normative databases of healthy subjects which may be helpful to assess white matter myelination and maturation.
1 Tanenbaum LN, Tsiouris AJ, Johnson AN, et al. Synthetic MRI for Clinical Neuroimaging: Results of the Magnetic Resonance Image Compilation (MAGiC) Prospective, Multicenter, Multireader Trial. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. April 2017. doi:10.3174/ajnr.A5227. 7.
2 Betts AM, Leach JL, Jones BV, Zhang B, Serai S. Brain imaging with synthetic MR in children: clinical quality assessment. Neuroradiology. 2016;58(10):1017-1026. doi:10.1007/s00234-016-1723-9