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

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.

Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging in children – how and why? A systematic review

“…The typical whole-body MRI protocol included STIR sequences only (20 papers) [ 29 – 32 , 38 , 39 , 41 – 44 , 51 , 56 , 58 , 61 , 63 , 66 – 68 , 74 , 75 ] or STIR and T1-W sequences (17 papers) [ 2 , 3 , 5 , 27 , 28 , 35 , 37 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 55 , 57 , 60 , 62 , 71 ]. Five studies used a protocol including STIR, T1-W and DWI [ 36 , 54 , 59 , 64 ], and four studies used only STIR and DWI [ 52 , 53 , 69 , 70 ].…”

“…Ten of the studies (18.5%) performed repeatability tests, of which 2 studies assessed inter- and intra-observer agreement [ 32 , 56 ] and 8 examined for interobserver agreement only [ 5 , 38 , 47 , 52 , 54 , 59 , 61 , 67 ]. Their results varied depending on what was assessed from the whole-body MRI.…”

“…whether a 3-T system performs better than a 1.5-T system. This issue was addressed in one study only including 21 children with different tumors, examined on both 1.5-T and 3-T systems [ 61 ]. They found substantial agreement between two observers, but a better image quality on the 1.5 T, and also fewer artefacts.…”

Paediatric Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Imaging and its Role in Oncological and Non-oncological Cases

“…There was a higher risk of developing susceptibility artefacts, dielectric shading, and motion artefacts with 3-T MRI even though it has a higher signal-to-noise ratio and contrast-to-noise ratio compared with 1.5-T. 2 Nevertheless both machines were comparable for detecting pathology. 9 The current technical standard for WBMRI includes a dedicated multi-channel, multielement surface coil system, allowing imaging of any part of the body at a particular time without having to move the coil system. 2 Unfortunately, not all centres have this technology so the protocol has to be tailored for each case to gain the best image possible.…”

1.5 vs 3 Tesla Magnetic Resonance Imaging

“…[54][55][56][57][58][59] However, data regarding direct comparison of 1.5 and 3 T imaging in the same patients is still sparse, and therefore no clear preference can be made for 1.5 or 3 T imaging in general. [60][61][62] For this reason, we would like to demonstrate in the following paragraphs indications that might be better suited for examination with 1.5 or 3 T imaging, respectively.…”