{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0511727078891258, 'fraction_numerical': 0.024164889836531627, 'mean_word_length': 4.938818565400844, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 4, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Image Quality of High-Resolution 3-Dimensional Neck MRI Using CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and GRASP-VIBE

Objectives Acquiring high-quality magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the head and neck region is often challenging due to motion and susceptibility artifacts. This study aimed to compare image quality of 2 high-resolution three-dimensional (3D) MRI sequences of the neck, controlled aliasing in parallel imaging results in higher acceleration (CAIPIRINHA)–volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE), and golden-angle radial sparse parallel imaging (GRASP)–VIBE. Materials and Methods One hundred seventy-three patients indicated for contrast-enhanced neck MRI examination were scanned using 3 T scanners and both CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and GRASP-VIBE with nearly isotropic 3D acquisitions (<1 mm in-plane resolution with analogous acquisition times). Patients' MRI scans were independently rated by 2 radiologists using a 5-grade Likert scale for overall image quality, artifact level, mucosal and lesion conspicuity, and fat suppression degree at separate anatomical regions. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Cohen κ coefficient. The quality ratings of both sequences were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Nonuniformity and contrast-to-noise ratio values were measured in all subjects. Separate MRI scans were performed twice for each sequence in a phantom and healthy volunteer without contrast injection to calculate the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Results The scores of overall image quality, overall artifact level, motion artifact level, and conspicuity of the nasopharynx, oropharynx, oral cavity, hypopharynx, and larynx were all significantly higher in GRASP-VIBE than in CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (all P's < 0.001). Moderate to substantial interobserver agreement was observed in overall image quality (GRASP-VIBE κ = 0.43; CAIPIRINHA-VIBE κ = 0.59) and motion artifact level (GRASP-VIBE κ = 0.51; CAIPIRINHA-VIBE κ = 0.65). Lesion conspicuity was significantly higher in GRASP-VIBE than in CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (P = 0.005). The degree of fat suppression was weaker in the lower neck regions in GRASP-VIBE (3.90 ± 0.72) than in CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (4.97 ± 0.21) (P < 0.001). The contrast-to-noise ratio at hypopharyngeal level was significantly higher in GRASP-VIBE (6.28 ± 4.77) than in CAIPIRINHA-VIBE (3.14 ± 9.95) (P < 0.001). In the phantom study, the SNR of GRASP-VIBE was 12 times greater than that of CAIPIRINHA-VIBE. The in vivo SNR of the volunteer MRI scan was 13.6 in CAIPIRINHA-VIBE and 20.7 in GRASP-VIBE. Conclusions Both sequences rendered excellent images for head and neck MRI scans. GRASP-VIBE provided better image quality, as well as mucosal and lesion conspicuities, with less motion artifacts, whereas CAIPIRINHA-VIBE provided better fat suppression in the lower neck regions.