Skeletal Radiology

, Volume 42, Issue 7, pp 993–1000 | Cite as

Technical innovation in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: an MR angiographic sequence using a sparse k-space sampling strategy

  • Laura M. FayadEmail author
  • Charles Mugera
  • Theodoros Soldatos
  • Aaron Flammang
  • Filippo del Grande
Technical Report



We demonstrate the clinical use of an MR angiography sequence performed with sparse k-space sampling (MRA), as a method for dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI, and apply it to the assessment of sarcomas for treatment response.

Materials and methods

Three subjects with sarcomas (2 with osteosarcoma, 1 with high-grade soft tissue sarcomas) underwent MRI after neoadjuvant therapy/prior to surgery, with conventional MRI (T1-weighted, fluid-sensitive, static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences) and DCE-MRI (MRA, time resolution = 7–10 s, TR/TE 2.4/0.9 ms, FOV 40 cm2). Images were reviewed by two observers in consensus who recorded image quality (1 = diagnostic, no significant artifacts, 2 = diagnostic, <25 % artifacts, 3 = nondiagnostic) and contrast enhancement characteristics by static MRI (presence/absence of contrast enhancement, percentage of enhancement) and DCE-MRI (presence/absence of arterial enhancement with time–intensity curves). Results were compared with histological response (defined as <5 % viable tumor [soft tissue sarcoma] or <10 % [bone sarcoma] following resection).


Diagnostic quality for all conventional and DCE-MRI sequences was rated as 1. In 2 of the 3 sarcomas, there was good histological response (≤5 % viable tumor); in 1 there was poor response (50 % viable tumor). By static post-contrast T1-weighted sequences, there was enhancement in all sarcomas, regardless of response (up to >75 % with good response, >75 % with poor response). DCE-MRI findings were concordant with histological response (arterial enhancement with poor response, no arterial enhancement with good response).


Unlike conventional DCE-MRI sequences, an MRA sequence with sparse k-space sampling is easily integrated into a routine musculoskeletal tumor MRI protocol, with high diagnostic quality. In this preliminary work, tumor enhancement characteristics by DCE-MRI were used to assess treatment response.


Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI MR angiography Tumor Sarcoma Musculoskeletal 


  1. 1.
    Van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, van Coevorden F, Zwinderman AH, et al. Soft-tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy. Radiology. 2004;233(2):493–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shapeero LG, Vanel D, Verstraete KL, Bloem JL. Fast magnetic resonance imaging with contrast for soft tissue sarcoma viability. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;397:212–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Toms AP, White LM, Kandel R, Bleakney RR, Noseworthy M, Lee S, et al. Limitations of single slice dynamic contrast enhanced MR in pharmacokinetic modeling of bone sarcomas. Acta Radiol. 2009;50(5):512–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, Carrino JA, Bluemke DA. MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional and metabolic techniques. Radiology. 2012;265:340–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Seng K, Maderwald S, de Greiff A, Quick HH, Laub G, Schmitt P, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography of the thoracic vessels: an intraindividual comparison of different k-space acquisition strategies. Investig Radiol. 2010;45(11):708–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hegyi M, Semsei AF, Jakab Z, et al. Good prognosis of localized osteosarcoma in young patients treated with limb-salvage surgery and chemotherapy. Pediatr Blood Cancer. 2011;57(3):415–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Donahue TR, Kattan MW, Nelson SD, Tap WD, Eilber FR, Eilber FC. Evaluation of neoadjuvant therapy and histopathologic response in primary, high-grade retroperitoneal sarcomas using the sarcoma nomogram. Cancer. 2010;116(16):3883–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, Peterse JL, van Coevorden F, Taminiau AH, et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging in monitoring response to isolated limb perfusion in high-grade soft tissue sarcoma: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(8):1849–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zaitsev M, D’Arcy J, Collins DJ, Leach MO, Zilles K, Shah NJ. Dual-contrast echo planar imaging with keyhole: application to dynamic contrast-enhanced perfusion studies. Phys Med Biol. 2005;50(19):4491–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Parrish T, Hu X. Continuous update with random encoding (CURE): a new strategy for dynamic imaging. Magn Reson Med. 1995;33(3):326–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Webb AG, Liang ZP, Magin RL, Lauterbur PC. Applications of reduced-encoding MR imaging with generalized-series reconstruction (RIGR). J Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;3(6):925–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISS 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura M. Fayad
    • 1
    Email author
  • Charles Mugera
    • 1
  • Theodoros Soldatos
    • 2
    • 3
  • Aaron Flammang
    • 4
  • Filippo del Grande
    • 1
  1. 1.Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological SciencesJohns Hopkins Medical InstitutionsBaltimoreUSA
  2. 2.Musculoskeletal Imaging SectionJohns Hopkins Medical InstitutionsBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Research Unit of Radiology and Medical Imaging, Evgenidion HospitalUniversity of AthensAthensGreece
  4. 4.Center for Applied Medical ImagingSiemens Corporate ResearchBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations