Advertisement

Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Basic Concepts

  • Peter BrysEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is dedicated to basic unenhanced, and static enhanced MRI. Distinction is made between imaging for local staging and for tissue characterization purpose, as well as between what is essential, what should be avoided, and what are useful additional techniques. An appropriate choice of imaging planes is suggested, stressing the importance of axial plane imaging for local staging.

For unenhanced MRI SE T1-WI and an optimal fluid-sensitive sequence are mandatory. The added value of fat-suppressed T1-WI for tissue characterization is discussed.

Enhanced MRI is not always mandatory but usually improves the evaluation of the internal structure of a tumor. Nonfat-suppressed-enhanced T1-WI is very useful for surgical planning.

Fat-suppressed-enhanced T1-WI is very popular, although not a routine requirement. Its advantages, disadvantages, and possible misinterpretation of Gd uptake are explained.

Subtraction images might be useful to differentiate between a subacute hematoma and a hemorrhagic tumor. Finally the limitation of static enhanced MRI and the added value of dynamic enhanced MRI are briefly discussed.

Keywords

Subtraction Image Local Staging Peritumoral Edema Stir Imaging Routine Requirement 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Amini B, Jessop AC, Ganeshan DM, Tseng WW, Madewell JE (2015) Contemporary imaging of soft tissue sarcomas. J Surg Oncol 111:496–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Constable RT, Anderson AW, Zhong J, Gore JC (1992) Factors influencing contrast in fast spin-echo MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 10:497–511CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotton A (1999) Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 19:373–382CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Schepper AM (2006) Grading and characterization of soft tissue tumors. In: De Schepper AM, Vanhoenacker F, Gielen J, Parizel PM (eds) Imaging of soft tissue tumors, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg/New York, pp 139–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Eid M, Abougabal A (2014) Subtraction images: a really helpful tool in non-vascular MRI. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 45:909–919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erlemann R, Reiser MF, Peters PE, Vasallo P, Nommensen B, Kusnierz-Glaz CR, Ritter J, Roessner A (1989) Musculoskeletal neoplasms: static and dynamic Gd-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 171:767–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fayad LM, Jacobs MA, Wang X, Carrino JA, Bluemke DA (2012) Musculoskeletal tumors: how to use anatomic, functional, and metabolic MR techniques. Radiology 265(2):340–356CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fleckenstein JL, Archer BT, Barker BA, Vaughan JT, Parkey RW, Peshock RM (1991) Fast short-tau inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 179:499–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Galant J, Marti-Bonmati L, Saez F, Soler R, Alcala-Santaella R, Navarro M (2003) The value of fat-suppressed T2 or STIR sequences in distinguishing lipoma from well-differentiated liposarcoma. Eur Radiol 13:337–343PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gielen J, De Schepper A, Parizel P, Wang X, Vanhoenacker F (2003) Additional value of magnetic resonance with spin echo T1-weighted imaging with suppression in characterization of soft tissue tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27(3):434–441CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardy PA, Kucharczyk W, Henkelman RM (1990) Cause of signal loss in MR images of old hemorrhagic lesions. Radiology 174:549–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Helms CA (1999) The use of fat suppression in gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system : a potential source of error. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:234–236CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Henkelman RM, Hardy PA, Bishop JE, Poon CS, Piewes DB (1992) Why is fat bright in RARE and fast spin-echo imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2:533–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaya M, Wada T, Nagoya S, Sasaki M, Matsumura T, Yamaguchi T, Hasegawa T, Yamashita T (2008) MRI and histological evaluation of the infiltrative growth pattern of myxofibrosarcoma. Skeletal Radiol 37:1085–1090CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kransdorf MJ, Murphey MD (2000) Radiologic evaluation of soft-tissue masses: a current perspective. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:575–587CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mallinson PI, Chou H, Forster BB, Munk PL (2014) Radiology of soft tissue tumors. Surg Oncol Clin N Am 29:911–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McDonald DJ (1994) Limb-salvage surgery for treatment of sarcomas of the extremities. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:509–513CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mirowitz SA, Apicella P, Reinus WR, Hammerman AM (1994) MR imaging of bone marrow lesions: relative conspicuousness on T1-weighted, fat-suppressed T2-weighted, and STIR-images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 162:215–221CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rubin DA, Kneeland JB (1994) MR imaging of the musculoskeletal system: technical considerations for enhancing image quality and diagnostic yield. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:1155–1163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shapeero LG, Vanel D, Verstraete KL, Bloem JL (2002) Fast magnetic resonance imaging with contrast for soft tissue sarcoma viability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 397:212–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shuman WP, Patten RM, Baron RI, Liddell RM, Conrad EU, Richardson ML (1991) Comparison of STIR and spin-echo MR imaging at 1.5 T in 45 suspected extremity tumors: lesion conspicuity and extent. Radiology 179:247–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Soulie D, Boyer B, Lescop J, Pujol A, Le Friant G, Cordoliani YS (1995) Liposarcome myxoide. Aspects en IRM. J Radiol 1:29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stark D, Bradley W (1992) Magnetic resonance imaging, 2nd edn. Mosby Year Book, St.LouisGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Taïeb S, Penel N, Vanseymortier L, Ceugnart L (2009) Soft tissue sarcomas or intramuscular haematomas ? Eur J Radiol 72:44–49CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    van Rijswijk CS, Geirnaerdt MJ, Hogendoorn PC, Taminiau AH, van Coevorden F, Zwinderman AH, Pope TL, Bloem JL (2004) Soft tissue tumors: value of static and dynamic Gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MR imaging in prediction of malignancy. Radiology 233:493–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Verstraete KL, Lang P (2000) Bone and soft tissue tumors: the role of contrast agents for MR imaging. Eur J Radiol 34:229–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Verstraete KL, De Deene Y, Roels H, Dierick A, Uyttendaele D, Kunnen M (1994) Benign and malignant musculoskeletal lesions: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging – parametric ‘first-pass’ images depict tissue vascularization and perfusion. Radiology 192:835–843CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verstraete KL, Vanzieleghem B, De Deene Y, Palmans H, De Greef D, Kristoffersen DT, Uyttendaele D, Roels H, Hamers J, Kunnen M (1995) Static, dynamic and first-pass MR imaging of musculoskeletal lesions using gadodiamide injection. Acta Radiol 36(1):27–36CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Verstraete KL, Van der Woude HJ, Hogendoorn PC, De Deene Y, Kunnen M, Bloem JL (1996) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of musculoskeletal tumors: basic principles and clinical applications. J Magn Reson Imaging 6(2):311–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu JS, Hochman MG (2009) Soft-tissue tumors and tumorlike lesions: a systematic imaging approach. Radiology 253(2):297–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity Hospitals LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations