Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Breath-hold volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (BH-VIBE) of multiphase contrast-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging (MPCE-LMRI) requires good cooperative individuals to comply with multiple breath-holds.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a free-breathing modified VIBE (FB-mVIBE) as a substitute of BH-VIBE in MPCE-LMRI.
METHODS: We modified VIBE with a high acceleration factor (2 × 2) and four averages to produce the mVIBE scan. A total of 90 individuals (40 men; mean age = 54.6 ± 10.0 years) who had received MPCE-LMRI as part of a voluntary health check-up for oncology survey were enrolled. Each participant was scanned in four phases (pre-contrast, arterial phase, venous phase, and delay phase), and each phase had two sequential scans. To encounter the timing effect of contrast enhancement, three scan orders were designed: BH-VIBE and FB-mVIBE (group A, n = 30); BH-VIBE and FB-VIBE (group B, n = 30); and FB-mVIBE and BH-VIBE (group C, n = 30). The comparisons included the objective measurements and 25 visual-score by two abdominal radiologists independently.
RESULTS: Consistency between raters was observed for all three sequences (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.741-0.829). For rater 1, the mean scores of FB-mVIBE (23.67 ± 1.32) were equal to those of BH-VIBE (23.83 ± 1.98) in groups C and B (P = 0.852). The mean scores of FB-mVIBE (22.07 ± 3.02), but significantly higher than those of FB-VIBE (14.7 ± 3.41) in groups A and B (P <0.001). Similar scores were found for rater 2. The objective measurement of FB-mVIBE were equal to or higher than BH-VIBE and markedly superior to FB-VIBE.
CONCLUSIONS: FB-mVIBE is a practical alternative to BH-VIBE for individuals who cannot cooperate with multiple breath-holds for MPCE-LMRI.
OBJECTIVE: To develop a free-breathing modified VIBE (FB-mVIBE) as a substitute of BH-VIBE in MPCE-LMRI.
METHODS: We modified VIBE with a high acceleration factor (2 × 2) and four averages to produce the mVIBE scan. A total of 90 individuals (40 men; mean age = 54.6 ± 10.0 years) who had received MPCE-LMRI as part of a voluntary health check-up for oncology survey were enrolled. Each participant was scanned in four phases (pre-contrast, arterial phase, venous phase, and delay phase), and each phase had two sequential scans. To encounter the timing effect of contrast enhancement, three scan orders were designed: BH-VIBE and FB-mVIBE (group A, n = 30); BH-VIBE and FB-VIBE (group B, n = 30); and FB-mVIBE and BH-VIBE (group C, n = 30). The comparisons included the objective measurements and 25 visual-score by two abdominal radiologists independently.
RESULTS: Consistency between raters was observed for all three sequences (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.741-0.829). For rater 1, the mean scores of FB-mVIBE (23.67 ± 1.32) were equal to those of BH-VIBE (23.83 ± 1.98) in groups C and B (P = 0.852). The mean scores of FB-mVIBE (22.07 ± 3.02), but significantly higher than those of FB-VIBE (14.7 ± 3.41) in groups A and B (P <0.001). Similar scores were found for rater 2. The objective measurement of FB-mVIBE were equal to or higher than BH-VIBE and markedly superior to FB-VIBE.
CONCLUSIONS: FB-mVIBE is a practical alternative to BH-VIBE for individuals who cannot cooperate with multiple breath-holds for MPCE-LMRI.
摘要：
背景：多相对比增强肝脏磁共振成像（MPCE-LMRI）的屏气容积内插屏气检查（BH-VIBE）需要良好的合作个体遵守多次屏气。
目的：开发自由呼吸改良VIBE（FB-mVIBE）作为MPCE-LMRI中BH-VIBE的替代品。
方法：我们以高加速因子（2×2）和四个平均值修改了VIBE，以产生mVIBE扫描。作为肿瘤学调查的自愿健康检查的一部分，共有90名接受MPCE-LMRI的个体（40名男性；平均年龄=54.6±10.0岁）被纳入。每个参与者分四个阶段进行扫描(对比前，动脉期,静脉期,和延迟相位)，每个阶段都有两次连续扫描。要遇到对比度增强的定时效果，设计了三个扫描顺序：BH-VIBE和FB-mVIBE（A组，n=30）；BH-VIBE和FB-VIBE（B组，n=30）；和FB-mVIBE和BH-VIBE（C组，n=30)。比较包括两名腹部放射科医生独立进行的客观测量和25个视觉评分。
结果:对于所有三个序列观察到评估者之间的一致性(组内相关系数[ICC]=0.741-0.829)。对于评估者1，C组和B组的FB-mVIBE的平均得分（23.67±1.32）等于BH-VIBE的平均得分（23.83±1.98）（P=0.852）。FB-mVIBE的平均得分（22.07±3.02），但A组和B组FB-VIBE（14.7±3.41）明显高于B组（P<0.001）。评分器2的评分相似。FB-mVIBE的客观测量值等于或高于BH-VIBE，并且明显优于FB-VIBE。
结论：FB-mVIBE是BH-VIBE的一种实用的替代方案，适用于不能多次屏气进行MPCE-LMRI的个体。
目的：开发自由呼吸改良VIBE（FB-mVIBE）作为MPCE-LMRI中BH-VIBE的替代品。
方法：我们以高加速因子（2×2）和四个平均值修改了VIBE，以产生mVIBE扫描。作为肿瘤学调查的自愿健康检查的一部分，共有90名接受MPCE-LMRI的个体（40名男性；平均年龄=54.6±10.0岁）被纳入。每个参与者分四个阶段进行扫描(对比前，动脉期,静脉期,和延迟相位)，每个阶段都有两次连续扫描。要遇到对比度增强的定时效果，设计了三个扫描顺序：BH-VIBE和FB-mVIBE（A组，n=30）；BH-VIBE和FB-VIBE（B组，n=30）；和FB-mVIBE和BH-VIBE（C组，n=30)。比较包括两名腹部放射科医生独立进行的客观测量和25个视觉评分。
结果:对于所有三个序列观察到评估者之间的一致性(组内相关系数[ICC]=0.741-0.829)。对于评估者1，C组和B组的FB-mVIBE的平均得分（23.67±1.32）等于BH-VIBE的平均得分（23.83±1.98）（P=0.852）。FB-mVIBE的平均得分（22.07±3.02），但A组和B组FB-VIBE（14.7±3.41）明显高于B组（P<0.001）。评分器2的评分相似。FB-mVIBE的客观测量值等于或高于BH-VIBE，并且明显优于FB-VIBE。
结论：FB-mVIBE是BH-VIBE的一种实用的替代方案，适用于不能多次屏气进行MPCE-LMRI的个体。
