Submitted:
07 June 2024
Posted:
07 June 2024
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
Study Population
Image and Data Analysis
Statistical Analysis
3. Results
- Research population
- 2.
- Clinical evaluation
- 3.
- Image analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Sudderuddin S, Helbren E, Telesca M, Williamson R, Rockall A. MRI appearances of benign uterine disease. Clin Radiol. 2014;69(11):1095-1104. [CrossRef]
- Bazot M, Thomassin I, Hourani R, Cortez A, Darai E. Diagnostic accuracy of transvaginal sonography for deep pelvic endometriosis. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2004;24(2):180-185. [CrossRef]
- Redpath TW. MRI developments in perspective. Br J Radiol. 1997;70 Spec No:S70-S80. [CrossRef]
- Bazot M, Bharwani N, Huchon C, et al. European society of urogenital radiology (ESUR) guidelines: MR imaging of pelvic endometriosis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(7):2765-2775. [CrossRef]
- Guerra A, Daraï E, Osório F, et al. Imaging of postoperative endometriosis. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2019;100(10):607-618. [CrossRef]
- Bradley WG Jr. MR appearance of hemorrhage in the brain. Radiology. 1993;189(1):15-26. [CrossRef]
- Holland, B A et al. “MR imaging of calcified intracranial lesions.” Radiology vol. 157,2 (1985): 353-6. [CrossRef]
- Hernando, Diego et al. “Quantification of liver iron with MRI: state of the art and remaining challenges.” Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI vol. 40,5 (2014): 1003-21. [CrossRef]
- Haller S, Haacke EM, Thurnher MM, Barkhof F. Susceptibility-weighted Imaging: Technical Essentials and Clinical Neurologic Applications. Radiology. 2021;299(1):3-26. [CrossRef]
- Liu S, Buch S, Chen Y, et al. Susceptibility-weighted imaging: current status and future directions. NMR Biomed. 2017;30(4):10.1002/nbm.3552. [CrossRef]
- Franco PN, Annibali S, Viganò S, et al. T2*-Weighted Imaging Performance in the Detection of Deep Endometriosis among Readers with Different Experience: Comparison with Conventional MRI Sequences. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(7):1545. [CrossRef]
- Haacke EM, Mittal S, Wu Z, Neelavalli J, Cheng YC. Susceptibility-weighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, part 1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2009;30(1):19-30. [CrossRef]
- Mittal, S., Wu, Z., Neelavalli, J., & Haacke, E. M. (2009). Susceptibility-weighted imaging: technical aspects and clinical applications, part 2. AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology, 30(2), 232–252. [CrossRef]
- Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Nishitani H.Susceptibility weighted MRI of endometrioma:preliminary results.AJR, 2008, 191:1366-1370. [CrossRef]
- Takeuchi M, Matsuzaki K, Harada M.Susceptibility-weighted MRIof extra-ovarian endometriosis:preliminary results.Abdom Imaging, 2015, 40:2512-2516.
- Pin L, Monseau-Thiburce AC, Ziade-Coularis C, et al. Exploratory study of the interest of MR susceptibility-weighted imaging for the pre-operative assessment of pelvic endometriosis extent. Eur J Radiol. 2019;118:245-250. [CrossRef]
- Guerriero S, Ajossa S, Pagliuca M, et al. Advances in Imaging for Assessing Pelvic Endometriosis. Diagnostics (Basel). 2022;12(12):2960. [CrossRef]
- Kim HS, Jahng GH, Ryu CW, Kim SY. Added value and diagnostic performance of intratumoral susceptibility signals in the differential diagnosis of solitary enhancing brain lesions: preliminary study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol.2009;30(8):1574-1579. [CrossRef]
- Chen H, Wang G, Wang X, Gao Y, Liang J, Wang J. Diagnostic value of susceptibility-weighted imaging for endometrioma: preliminary results from a retrospective analysis. Acta Radiol. 2022;63(7):976-981. [CrossRef]
- Nandigam RN, Viswanathan A, Delgado P, et al. MR imaging detection of cerebral microbleeds: effect of susceptibility-weighted imaging, section thickness, and field strength. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009;30(2):338–343.
- Halefoglu AM, Yousem DM. Susceptibility weighted imaging: Clinical applications and future directions. World J Radiol. 2018;10(4):30-45. [CrossRef]
- Haller S, Haacke EM, Thurnher MM, Barkhof F. Susceptibility-weighted Imaging: Technical Essentials and Clinical Neurologic Applications. Radiology. 2021;299(1):3-26. [CrossRef]
- De A, Grenier J, Wilman AH. Simultaneous time-of-flight MR angiography and quantitative susceptibility mapping with key time-of-flight features. NMR Biomed. 2024;37(4):e5079.
- Knobloch G, Nagle S, Colgan T, et al. Feasibility and optimization of ultra-short echo time MRI for improved imaging of IVC-filters at 3.0 T. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2021;46(1):362-372. [CrossRef]
- Schmidt VF, Dietrich O, Kazmierczak PM, Seidensticker M, Ricke J, Armbruster M. Optimized visualization of focal liver lesions and vascular structures in real-time T1-weighted gradient echo sequences for magnetic resonance-guided liver procedures. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023;29(1):128-137. [CrossRef]
- Epstein FH, Mugler JP, Brookeman JR. Spoiling of transverse magnetization in gradient-echo (GRE) imaging during the approach to steady state. Magn Reson Med. 1996;35(2):237–245. [CrossRef]
- Jeon I, Cho ES, Kim JH, Kim DJ, Yu JS, Chung JJ. Feasibility of 10-Minute Delayed Hepatocyte Phase Imaging Using a 30° Flip Angle in Gd-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced Liver MRI for the Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Chronic Hepatitis or Cirrhosis. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0167701. [CrossRef]
- Schmidt VF, Dietrich O, Kazmierczak PM, Seidensticker M, Ricke J, Armbruster M. Optimized visualization of focal liver lesions and vascular structures in real-time T1-weighted gradient echo sequences for magnetic resonance-guided liver procedures. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023;29(1):128-137. [CrossRef]
- Zibetti MVW, De Moura HL, Keerthivasan MB, Regatte RR. Optimizing variable flip angles in magnetization-prepared gradient-echo sequences for efficient 3D-T1ρ mapping. Magn Reson Med. 2023;90(4):1465-1483.
- Knobloch G, Colgan T, Wang X, Woo KM, Schubert T, Reeder SB. Combined gadoxetic acid and gadobenate dimeglumine enhanced liver MRI: a parameter optimization study. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2020;45(1):220-231. [CrossRef]
- Hellms S, Gutberlet M, Peperhove MJ, et al. Applicability of readout-segmented echoplanar diffusion weighted imaging for prostate MRI. Medicine (Baltimore). 2019;98(29):e16447. [CrossRef]
- Okada, Masahiro et al. “Optimal flip angle of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and liver metastasis.” Abdominal imaging vol. 39,4 (2014): 694-701. [CrossRef]
- Odin, Christophe. “Repetitive experiments of one or two-pulse sequences in NQR of spins I=3/2: Liouville space, steady-state, Ernst angle and optimum signal.” Solid state nuclear magnetic resonance vol. 85-86 (2017): 25-33.
- Cai, Zhenyu et al. “Knee osteochondral junction imaging using a fast 3D T1-weighted ultrashort echo time cones sequence at 3T.” Magnetic resonance imaging vol. 73 (2020): 76-83. [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Yu-Dong et al. “MRI contrast agents: Classification and application (Review).” International journal of molecular medicine vol. 38,5 (2016): 1319-1326. [CrossRef]
- Siedek, Florian et al. “Magnetic Resonance-Guided High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound (MR-HIFU): Technical Background and Overview of Current Clinical Applications (Part 1).” “Magnetresonanz-gesteuerter hochintensiver fokussierter Ultraschall (MR-HIFU): Technische Aspekte und Überblick über die etablierten Applikationen (Teil 1).” RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin vol. 191,6 (2019): 522-530.





| Scanning parameters | SWI | T2 | T2WI | T1WI | DWI | LAVA |
| Abdo | pelvis | |||||
| Patients | 17 | 30 | ||||
| B0 field strength(T) | 3.0 | |||||
| Scanner model | SIGNA Pioneer | |||||
| Sequence | 3D SPGR | FRFSE | FRFSE | SPGR | EPI | 3D GRE |
| Orientation | Axial | Sagittal | Axial | Axial | Axial | Axial |
| Echo time(ms) | Out of phase | 85 | 98 | In Phase | Minimum | 1.9 |
| Repetition time(ms) | Minimum | 3761 | 2509 | 150 | 5490 | 4.1 |
| Slice thickness(mm) | 3 | 4 | 4.0 | 5.0 | 4.0 | 3.6 |
| Slice gap(mm) | 0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 0 |
| Field of view(mm) | 300 | 240 | 240 | 380 | 380 | 380 |
| Bandwidth | 31.25 | 35.71 | 41.67 | 83.33 | 250 | 83.33 |
| NEX | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | ||
| Acquisition matrix | 360×300 | 320×256 | 360×256 | 320×224 | 128×128 | 320×288 |
| Breathing instructions | Free | Free | Free | Free | Free | Free |
| Flip angel | 10、15、20 | 140 | 140 | 70 | 12 | |
| Characteristic | N(type) | Total | |
| Age(years) | 45.81±13.07 | ||
| N(patient) | 47 | ||
| N(lesion) | 55 | ||
| Endometriosis | Ectodermatosis | 9 | 16 |
| Adenomyosis | 6 | ||
| Rectal endometriosis | 1 | ||
| Hysteromyoma | Intramural | 5 | 13 |
| Anterior | 2 | ||
| Posterior | 5 | ||
| Fundal | 1 | ||
| Ovarian cysts | Luteum cyst | 3 | 8 |
| Mesangial cyst | 3 | ||
| Other | 2 | ||
| Cystadenoma | Serous | 5 | 8 |
| Mucinous | 3 | ||
| Cervical cysts | 6 | 6 | |
| Teratoma | 2 | 2 | |
| Cervical cancer | 2 | 2 | |
| Total(lesion) | 55 | 55 | |
| Parameter | Reader | FA | p | ||
| 10° | 15° | 20° | |||
| Anatomical details | Reader1 | 3.7±0.5ab | 3.1±0.6 b | 2.8±0.8 | <0.0001 |
| Reader2 | 3.7±0.7 ab | 3.3±0.7 b | 2.6±0.8 | <0.0001 | |
| ICC | 0.903 | 0.873 | 0.784 | ||
| Geometric deformation | Reader1 | 3.6±0.6 ab | 3.4±0.7 b | 3.0±0.9 | <0.0001 |
| Reader2 | 3.5±0.6 ab | 3.3±0.7 b | 3.1±0.7 | <0.0001 | |
| ICC | 0.919 | 0.759 | 0.756 | ||
| Artifact | Reader1 | 3.5±0.7 ab | 3.1±0.7 b | 2.7±0.9 | <0.0001 |
| Reader2 | 3.5±0.8 ab | 3.3±0.8 b | 2.8±0.9 | <0.0001 | |
| ICC | 0.907 | 0.862 | 0.827 | ||
| Lesion resolution | Reader1 | 3.6±0.6 ab | 3.1±0.6 b | 2.7±0.7 | <0.0001 |
| Reader2 | 3.6±0.6 ab | 3.3±0.5 b | 2.8±0.7 | <0.0001 | |
| ICC | 0.867 | 0.785 | 0.896 | ||
| Variables | N | FA | F | p | |||
| 10° | 15° | 20° | |||||
| SNR | lesion | 55 | 129.31±30.33ab | 107.06±31.64 | 92.77±33.43 | 14.729 | <0.0001 |
| ectogluteus | 55 | 62.58±15.60 ab | 54.19±14.74b | 46.31±12.33 | 17.834 | <0.0001 | |
| uterus | 55 | 105.37±22.43 ab | 92.38±22.89 | 83.04±24.88 | 10.089 | <0.0001 | |
| CNR | lesion | 55 | 67.12±25.01 ab | 53.66±27.20 | 47.05±30.27 | 6.056 | 0.003* |
| uterus | 55 | 43.71±21.17 | 37.04±15.54 | 36.07±17.54 | 2.293 | 0.105 | |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).