A Spiral Spin-Echo MR Imaging Technique for Improved Flow Artifact Suppression in T1-Weighted Postcontrast Brain Imaging: A Comparison with Cartesian Turbo Spin-Echo

T1-weighted enhanced brain imaging was performed in 24 pediatric patients comparing the reference Cartesian TSE sequence (2 minutes 30 seconds) with a spiral spin-echo sequence (1 minutes 18 seconds) with similar spatial resolution and coverage. In 23/24 cases, spiral spin-echo was scored better than Cartesian TSE for flow artifact reduction and in 21 cases was superior in subjective preference. The authors demonstrate a relatively simple 2D spiral SE approach in T1-weighted postcontrast brain MR imaging that has minimal flow artifacts in comparison with its 2D Cartesian TSE counterpart. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: A challenge with the T1-weighted postcontrast Cartesian spin-echo and turbo spin-echo brain MR imaging is the presence of flow artifacts. Our aim was to develop a rapid 2D spiral spin-echo sequence for T1-weighted MR imaging with minimal flow artifacts and to compare it with a conventional Cartesian 2D turbo spin-echo sequence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: T1-weighted brain imaging was performed in 24 pediatric patients. After the administration of intravenous gadolinium contrast agent, a reference Cartesian TSE sequence with a scanning time of 2 minutes 30 seconds was performed, followed by the proposed spiral spin-echo sequence with a scanning time of 1 minutes 18 seconds, with similar spatial resolution and volumetric coverage. The results were reviewed independently and blindly by 3 neuroradiologists. Scores from a 3-point scale were assigned in 3 categories: flow artifact reduction, subjective preference, and lesion conspicuity, if any. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to evaluate the reviewer scores. The t test was used to evaluate the SNR. The Fleiss coefficient was calculated to examine interreader agreement. RESULTS: In 23 cases, spiral spin-echo was scored over Cartesian TSE in flow artifact reduction (P < .001). In 21 cases, spiral spin-echo was rated superior in subjective preference (P < .001). Ten patients were identified with lesions, and no statistically significant difference in lesion conspicuity was observed between the 2 sequences. There was no statistically significant difference in SNR between the 2 techniques. The Fleiss coefficient was 0.79 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: The proposed spiral spin-echo pulse sequence provides postcontrast images with minimal flow artifacts at a faster scanning time than its Cartesian TSE counterpart.