Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Interpreting body MRI cases: what you need to know to get started

  • Pictorial Essay
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Interpreting body MRI cases can seem overwhelming to an uninitiated radiologist. The standard study includes a variety of pulse sequences, the names of which vary depending on the MR vendor. Pulse sequences may be displayed haphazardly on the picture archiving and communication system (PACS), frequently not synchronized with the imaging protocol. Adding to the complexity is the use of different gadolinium-based contrast agents, which may affect the timing and diagnostic yield of each sequence. The following introductory primer for interpreting body MRI cases is meant to create a basic framework for efficiently reviewing body MRI cases to provide high quality interpretations, fully utilizing the diagnostic information of the modality. There are 4 components that need to be mastered when interpreting body MRI cases including: (1) recognizing the key sequences in a basic body MRI protocol, (2) learning how to best display the key pulse sequences on PACS, (3) understanding the technique and clinical utility of each sequence and learning how to utilize sequences to be an “MR Pathologist”, and (4) understanding the key features of the different gadolinium based contrast agents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ringe KI, Husarik DB, Sirlin CB, Merkle EM (2010) Gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI of the liver: part 1, protocol optimization and lesion appearance in the noncirrhotic liver. Am J Roentgenol 195:13–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG, Gupta S (2014) Gadolinium contrast agent selection and optimal use for body mr imaging. Radiol Clin N Am 52:637–656

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ito K, Mitchell DG, Outwater EK, Szklaruk J, Sadek AG (1997) Hepatic lesions: discrimination of nonsolid, benign lesions from solid, malignant lesions with heavily T2-weighted fast spin-echo MR imaging. Radiology 204:729–737

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Boyle GE, Ahern M, Cooke J, Sheehy NP, Meaney JF (2006) An interactive taxonomy of MR imaging sequences1. Radiographics 26:e24–e24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Guglielmo FF, Mitchell DG, Roth CG, Deshmukh S (2014) Hepatic MR imaging techniques, optimization, and artifacts. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:263–282

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chang SD, Thoeni RF (2008) Effect of T1 shortening on T2-weighted MRI sequences: comparison of hepatic mass conspicuity on images acquired before and after gadolinium enhancement. Am J Roentgenol 190:1318–1323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jeong YY, Mitchell DG, Holland GA (2001) Liver lesion conspicuity: T2-weighted Breath-hold fast spin-echo MR imaging before and after gadolinium enhancement—initial experience1. Radiology 219:455–460

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pokharel SS, Macura KJ, Kamel IR, Zaheer A (2013) Current MR imaging lipid detection techniques for diagnosis of lesions in the abdomen and pelvis. Radiographics 33(3):681–702

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Earls JP, Krinsky GA (1997) Abdominal and pelvic applications of opposed-phase MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:1071–1077

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, et al. (1999) Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 19:373–382

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cassidy FH, Yokoo T, Aganovic L, et al. (2009) fatty liver disease: MR imaging techniques for the detection and quantification of liver steatosis 1. Radiographics 29:231–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Merkle EM, Nelson RC (2006) Dual gradient-echo in-phase and opposed-phase hepatic mr imaging: a useful tool for evaluating more than fatty infiltration or fatty sparing 1. Radiographics 26:1409–1418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bitar R, Leung G, Perng R, et al. (2006) MR pulse sequences: what every radiologist wants to know but is afraid to ask 1. Radiographics 26:513–537

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Griffin N, Charles-Edwards G, Grant LA (2012) Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography: the ABC of MRCP. Insights Imaging 3:11–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Takahashi S, Kim T, Murakami T, et al. (2000) Influence of paramagnetic contrast on single-shot MRCP image quality. Abdom Imaging 25:511–513

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Beers BE, Pastor CM, Hussain HK (2012) Primovist, Eovist: what to expect? J Hepatol 57(2):421–429

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dietrich O, Biffar A, Baur-Melnyk A, Reiser MF (2010) Technical aspects of MR diffusion imaging of the body. Eur J Radiol 76:314–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Koh D, Collins DJ (2007) Diffusion-weighted MRI in the body: applications and challenges in oncology. Am J Roentgenol 188:1622–1635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Malayeri AA, El Khouli RH, Zaheer A, et al. (2011) Principles and applications of diffusion-weighted imaging in cancer detection, staging, and treatment follow-up. Radiographics 31:1773–1791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Taouli B, Koh D (2010) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the liver1. Radiology 254:47–66

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Koh D, Takahara T, Imai Y, Collins DJ (2007) Practical aspects of assessing tumors using clinical diffusion-weighted imaging in the body. Magn Reson Med Sci 6:211–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Parikh T, Drew SJ, Lee VS, et al. (2008) Focal liver lesion detection and characterization with diffusion-weighted mr imaging: comparison with standard breath-hold T2-weighted imaging 1. Radiology 246:812–822

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chavhan GB, Babyn PS, Jankharia BG, Cheng HM, Shroff MM (2008) Steady-state MR imaging sequences: physics, classification, and clinical applications1. Radiographics 28:1147–1160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hargreaves B (2004) Fast gradient echo sequences including balanced SSFP. J Magn Reson Imaging 20:857–864

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Scheffler K, Lehnhardt S (2003) Principles and applications of balanced SSFP techniques. Eur Radiol 13:2409–2418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Graves MJ, Mitchell DG (2013) Body MRI artifacts in clinical practice: a physicist’s and radiologist’s perspective. J Magn Reson Imaging 38:269–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rescinito G, Sirlin C, Cittadini G Jr (2009) Body MRI artefacts: from image degradation to diagnostic utility. Radiol Med 114:18–31

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ma J (2004) Breath-hold water and fat imaging using a dual-echo two-point dixon technique with an efficient and robust phase-correction algorithm. Magn Reson Med 52:415–419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ma J, Vu AT, Son JB, Choi H, Hazle JD (2006) Fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo dixon technique for contrast agent enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:36–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ma J (2008) Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:543–558

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Hao D, Ai T, Goerner F, et al. (2012) MRI contrast agents: basic chemistry and safety. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:1060–1071

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. van der Molen AJ, Bellin MF (2008) Extracellular gadolinium-based contrast media: differences in diagnostic efficacy. Eur J Radiol 66:168–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Tweedle MF, Kanal E, Muller R (2014) Considerations in the selection of a new gadolinium-based contrast agent. Appl Radiol (Suppl):1–11

  34. Prince MR, Zhang HL, Roditi GH, Leiner T, Kucharczyk W (2009) Risk factors for NSF: a literature review. J Magn Reson Imaging 30:1298–1308

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Frydrychowicz A, Lubner MG, Brown JJ, et al. (2012) Hepatobiliary MR imaging with gadolinium-based contrast agents. J Magn Reson Imaging 35:492–511

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Hadizadeh DR, Gieseke J, Lohmaier SH, et al. (2008) Peripheral MR angiography with blood pool contrast agent: prospective intraindividual comparative study of high-spatial-resolution steady-state MR angiography versus standard-resolution first-pass MR angiography and DSA1. Radiology 249:701–711

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lewis M, Yanny S, Malcolm PN (2012) Advantages of blood pool contrast agents in MR angiography: a pictorial review. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 56:187–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Morcos S (2008) Extracellular gadolinium contrast agents: differences in stability. Eur J Radiol 66:175–179

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Gandhi SN, Brown MA, Wong JG, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB (2006) MR contrast agents for liver imaging: what, when, how1. Radiographics 26:1621–1636

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Seale MK, Catalano OA, Saini S, Hahn PF, Sahani DV (2009) Hepatobiliary-specific MR contrast agents: role in imaging the liver and biliary tree. Radiographics 29:1725–1748

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Goodwin MD, Dobson JE, Sirlin CB, Lim BG, Stella DL (2011) Diagnostic challenges and pitfalls in MR imaging with hepatocyte-specific contrast agents. Radiographics 31:1547–1568

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Shellock FG, Parker JR, Pirovano G, et al. (2006) Safety characteristics of gadobenate dimeglumine: clinical experience from intra-and interindividual comparison studies with gadopentetate dimeglumine. J Magn Reson Imaging 24:1378–1385

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gerretsen SC, le Maire TF, Miller S, et al. (2010) Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine and gadopentetate dimeglumine for MR angiography of peripheral arteries 1. Radiology 255:988–1000

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Pintaske J, Martirosian P, Graf H, et al. (2006) Relaxivity of gadopentetate dimeglumine (Magnevist), gadobutrol (Gadovist), and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance) in human blood plasma at 0.2, 1.5, and 3 Tesla. Investig Radiol 41:213–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Hussain HK, Londy FJ, Francis IR, et al. (2003) Hepatic arterial phase mr imaging with automated bolus-detection three-dimensional fast gradient-recalled-echo sequence: comparison with test-bolus method 1. Radiology 226:558–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Mitchell D, Cohen M (2004) MRI principles. Philadelphia: Elsevier

    Google Scholar 

  47. Semelka RC, Helmberger TKG (2001) Contrast agents for MR imaging of the liver1. Radiology 218:27–38

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Davenport MS, Viglianti BL, Al-Hawary MM, et al. (2013) Comparison of acute transient dyspnea after intravenous administration of gadoxetate disodium and gadobenate dimeglumine: effect on arterial phase image quality. Radiology 266:452–461

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. American College of Radiology. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2014. http://www.acr.org/Quality-Safety/Resources/LIRADS/. Accessed 6 Mar 2016

  50. Klotz T, Montoriol P, Da Ines D, et al. (2013) Hepatic haemangioma: common and uncommon imaging features. Diagn Interv Imaging 94:849–859

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Cogley JR, Miller FH (2014) MR imaging of benign focal liver lesions. Radiol Clin N Am 52:657–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Siegelman ES, Chauhan A (2014) MR characterization of focal liver lesions: pearls and pitfalls. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 22:295–313

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Péporté AR, Sommer WH, Nikolaou K, Reiser MF, Zech CJ (2013) Imaging features of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI. Eur J Radiol 82:e101–e106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Zhang P, Cui Y, Li W, et al. (2012) Diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging with conventional MR imaging for differentiating complex solid and cystic ovarian tumors at 1.5 T. World J Surg Oncol 10:237

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Ratcliffe GE, Kirkpatrick ID (2014) Anik Sahni V, Greenberg HM, Henderson B, Radulovic D, Mottola JC. Detection and localization of bile duct leaks after cholecystectomy using Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR cholangiography: retrospective study of 16 patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38:518–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Thomas Jefferson University, 132 South 10th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA

    Flavius F. Guglielmo, Leann M. Kania, Hassan M. Ahmad, Christopher G. Roth & Donald G. Mitchell

Authors
  1. Flavius F. Guglielmo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leann M. Kania
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hassan M. Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Christopher G. Roth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Donald G. Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flavius F. Guglielmo.

Ethics declarations

Funding

This article did not receive any funding.

Conflict of interest

Flavius F. Guglielmo, Leann M. Kania, Christopher G. Roth, and Donald G. Mitchell declare that they have no conflict of interest. Hassan M. Ahmad is a research intern for IBM Watson Health.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guglielmo, F.F., Kania, L.M., Ahmad, H.M. et al. Interpreting body MRI cases: what you need to know to get started. Abdom Radiol 41, 2248–2269 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0829-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-016-0829-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation