Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the time dependency of the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of head and neck malignancies during contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Then we would compare the CNR of dynamic snapshot gradient-echo (SGE) images with conventional spin-echo (SE) and fast spin-echo (FSE) sequences. Fifteen patients with squamous cell carcinomas were examined with T1W-SE, T2W-FSE, contrast-enhanced Gd-TlW-SE, and T1W-SGE sequences, the latter statically and contrast-enhanced dynamically. The CNR for all sequences and adjacent tissues was computed and the time to reach maximal CNR (Tmax) was determined for dynamic studies. The CNR was time dependent with two distinct Tmax at 6–18 and 60–160 s which corresponded to two different tumor enhancement patterns. Neither enhancement pattern correlated with distinct histologic findings or tumor grading. The CNR improved for the Gd-TlW-SGE images. The improvement was statistically significant in relation to T1W-SE and Gd-TlW-SE images at the floor of the mouth and at the tongue base. The good CNR of the dynamic Gd-TlW-SGE measurements justifies further investigations of this method in order to improve tumor delineation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Vogl T, Brüning R, Grevers G, Mees K, Bauer M, Lissner J (1988) MR imaging of the pharynx and tongue: Comparison of plain and Gd-DTPA studies.J Comput Assist Tomogr 12(3: 427–33.
Barakos JA, Dillon WP, Chew WM (1991) Orbit, skull base, and pharynx: Contrast-enhanced fat suppression MR imaging.Radiology 179: 191–198.
Zoarski GH, Mackey JK, Anzai Y et al. (1993) Head and neck: Initial clinical experience with fast spin-echo MR imaging.Radiology 188: 323–327.
Ross MR, Schomer DF, Chapell P, Enzmann DR (1994) MR imaging of head and neck tumors: Comparison of Tl-weighted contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed images with conventional T2-weighted and fast spin-echo T2-weighted images.AJR 163: 173–178.
Dubin MD, Teresi LM, Bradley WG et al. (1995) Conspicuity of tumors of the head and neck on fat-suppressed MR images: T2-weighted fast-spin-echo versus contrast-enhanced Tl-weighted conventional spin-echo sequences.AJR 164: 1213–1221.
Gückel C, Deimling M (1994) Dynamische MRT-Kontrastmittelstudien: Besonderheiten der Inversion Recovery FLASH Sequenz dargestellt mit einem Simulationsprogramm.Schweiz Med Wochenschr 124(Suppl 57): 23.
Vogl TJ, Mack MG, Juergens M et al. (1993) Skull base tumors: Gadodiamide injection-enhanced MR imaging—Drop-out effect in the early enhancement pattern of paragangliomas versus different tumors.Radiology 188: 339–346.
Takashima S, Noguchi Y, Okumura T, Aruga H, Kobayashi T (1993) Dynamic MR imaging in the head and neck.Radiology 189: 813–821.
Hendrick RE, Raff U (1992) Image contrast and noise. InMagnetic resonance imaging (Stark DD, Bradley WG, Jr., eds.) pp. 109–144. St. Louis: Mosby Year Book.
Michael AS, Mafee MF, Valvassori GE, Tan WS (1985) Dynamic computed tomography of the head and neck: Differential diagnostic value.Radiology 154: 413–419.
Som PM, Lanzieri CF, Lawson W, Biller HF (1985) Extracranial tumor vascularity: Determination by dynamic CT scanning.Radiology 154: 401–405.
Fulbright R, Panush D, Sze G, Smith RC, Constable RT (1994) MR of the head and neck: comparison of fast spin-echo and conventional spin-echo sequences.AJNR 15(4): 767–773.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Gückel, C., Schnabel, K., Deimling, M. et al. Dynamic snapshot gradient-echo imaging of head and neck malignancies: time dependency and quality of contrast-to-noise ratio. MAGMA 4, 61–69 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01759781
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01759781