SWI vs T2* which is better for susceptibility?

VRU 2023 - 64(3): 464-472

Background: The study focuses on the comparison of two MRI techniques, susceptibility-weighted imaging (SWI) and T2*-weighted gradient echo (GE), for detecting areas of signal void (ASV) in the brains of dogs and cats with different neurological diseases. ASV are caused by substances that have magnetic properties, such as blood or metal.

Study: The authors aimed to determine the effectiveness of SWI and T2*-weighted GE in identifying ASV, and to distinguish between ASV that were vessels or hemorrhages.

Methods: The authors compared the sensitivity and accuracy of SWI and T2*-weighted GE in detecting ASV in the brains of dogs and cats with various neurological diseases.

Results: The study found that SWI was more sensitive and accurate than T2*-weighted GE for identifying ASV, especially those that were small, isolated, or had a tubular shape. Furthermore, SWI helped to distinguish between ASV that were vessels or hemorrhages, which could have implications for the diagnosis and grading of brain tumors.

Limitations: The authors acknowledged some limitations of their study, such as the lack of histopathological confirmation, the subjective grading of ASV, the absence of SWI phase imaging, and the possible influence of MRI parameters on the detection of ASV.

Conclusions: The study concluded that SWI is a more effective technique for detecting ASV in the brains of dogs and cats with neurological diseases. However, further studies are needed to validate these findings and to explore the clinical relevance of SWI in veterinary patients.

T2*-weighted GE (A) and susceptibility-weighted (minIP = 4 mm) (B) transverse MR images of the brain of an 11-year-old male entire Beagle with a history of head trauma. Multiple microbleeds were identified (arrows) on both sequences. Susceptibility-weighted imaging identified a greater number of lesions and showed them more conspicuously than T2*-weighted GE images

How did we do?

Login or Subscribe to participate in polls.

Disclaimer: The summary generated in this email was created by an AI large language model. Therefore errors may occur. Reading the article is the best way to understand the scholarly work. The figure presented here remains the property of the publisher or author and subject to the applicable copyright agreement. It is reproduced here as an educational work. If you have any questions or concerns about the work presented here, reply to this email.