A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research

European Radiology

Volumn 22, Issue 11, 2012, Pages 2295-2303

  Wardlaw, Joanna M ^a,b,i   Brindle, Will ^b   Casado, Ana M ^b   Shuler, Kirsten ^a,b   Henderson, Moira ^a,b   Thomas, Brenda ^b   MacFarlane, Jennifer ^a,c   Maniega, Susana Muñoz ^a,b   Lymer, Katherine ^a,b   Morris, Zoe ^b   Pernet, Cyril ^a,b   Nailon, William ^b   Ahearn, Trevor ^a,d   Mumuni, Abdul Nashirudeen ^a,e   Mugruza, Carlos ^a,c   McLean, John ^a,e   Chakirova, Goultchira ^a,b   Tao, Yuehui ^a,b   Simpson, Johanna ^a,f   Stanfield, Andrew C ^b   Johnston, Harriet ^a,g   Parikh, Jehill ^a,b   Royle, Natalie A ^a,b   De Wilde, Janet ^a,b,j   Bastin, Mark E ^a,b   Weir, Nick ^h   Farrall, Andrew ^a,b   Hernandez, Maria C Valdes ^a,b   more..

^a Scottish Imaging Network   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

^f UNIVERSITY OF STIRLING   (United Kingdom)

^g UNIVERSITY OF ST ANDREWS   (United Kingdom)

^h ROYAL INFIRMARY OF EDINBURGH   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ WESTERN GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^j HIGHER EDUCATION ACADEMY   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Brain; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neuroimaging; Sensitivity and specificity; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

1.5 TESLA NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; 3 TESLA NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; ARTIFACT; BRAIN ANGIOGRAPHY; BRAIN METASTASIS; BRAIN TUMOR; CEREBROVASCULAR DISEASE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CONTRAST NOISE RATIO; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTRACRANIAL ANEURYSM; MAGNETIC RESONANCE ANGIOGRAPHY; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEUROIMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; BRAIN; BRAIN MAPPING; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; NEOPLASMS; NEUROIMAGING; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SIGNAL-TO-NOISE RATIO;

EID: 84870337640     PISSN: 09387994     EISSN: 14321084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-012-2500-8     Document Type: Review

References (61)

1. Wellcome Trust (2011) Human functional brain imaging 1990-2009: portfolio review. Wellcome Trust, London
2. Alvarez-Linera J (2008) 3 T MRI: advances in brain imaging. Eur J Radiol 67: 415-426
3. Frayne R, Goodyear BG, Dickhoff P, Lauzon ML, Sevick RJ (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla: challenges and advantages in clinical neurological imaging. Invest Radiol 38: 385-402
4. Weintraub MI, Khoury A, Cole SP (2007) Biologic effects of 3 Tesla (T) MR imaging comparing traditional 1.5 T and 0.6 T in 1023 consecutive outpatients. J Neuroimaging 17: 241-245
5. de Vocht F, Stevens T, vanWendel-de-Joode B, Engels H, Kromhout H (2006) Acute neurobehavioral effects of exposure to static magnetic fields: analyses of exposure-response relations. J Magn Reson Imaging 23: 291-297
6. Millennium Research Group (2011) Funding frugality: US health care facilities reduce imaging spending. http://mrg.net/News-and- Events/Medtech-Confidence-Index/Funding-Frugality.aspx. Accessed 9 Nov 2011
7. McKinsey Global Institute (2008) Accounting for the cost of U.S. health care: a new look at why Americans spend more. http://www.mckinsey.com/Insights/ MGI/Research/Americas/Accounting- for-the-cost-of-US-health-care. Accessed 11 Nov 2011
8. Farah MJ (2009) A picture is worth a thousand dollars. J Cogn Neurosci 21: 623-624
9. Roskies AL (2007) Are neuroimages like photographs of the brain? Philos Sci 74: 860-872
10. Wardlaw JM, Schafer B (2011) What am I thinking and who has the right to know? Contributions from a workshop on the wider societal implications of neuroimaging. Cortex 47: 1147-1150
11. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J (2006) Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 6: 9
12. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE et al (2003) Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Clin Radiol 58: 575-580
13. Gaa J, Weidauer S, Requardt M, Kiefer B, Lanfermann H, Zanella FE (2004) Comparison of intracranial 3D-ToF-MRA with and without parallel acquisition techniques at 1.5 T and 3.0 T: preliminary results. Acta Radiol 45: 327-332
14. Bernstein MA, Huston JI, Lin C, Gibbs GF, Felmlee JP (2001) High-resolution intracranial and cervical MRA at 3.0 T: technical considerations and initial experience. Magn Reson Med 46: 955-962
15. Zou Z, Ma L, Cheng L, Cai Y, Meng X (2008) Time-resolved contrast-enhanced MR angiography of intracranial lesions. J Magn Reson Imaging 27: 692-699
16. Willinek WA, Born M, Simon B et al (2003) Time-of-flight MR angiography: comparison of 3.0-T imaging and 1.5-T imaging - initial experience. Radiology 229: 913-920
17. Kantarci K, Reynolds G, Petersen RC et al (2003) Proton MR spectroscopy in mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease: comparison of 1.5 and 3 T. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 24: 843-849
18. Barker PB, Hearshen DO, Boska MD (2001) Single-voxel proton MRS of the human brain at 1.5 T and 3.0 T. Magn Reson Med 45: 765-769
19. Inglese M, Spindler M, Babb JS, Sunenshine P, Law M, Gonen O (2006) Field, coil, and echo-time influence on sensitivity and reproducibility of brain proton MR spectroscopy. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27: 684-688
20. Li Y, Osorio JA, Ozturk-Isik E et al (2006) Considerations in applying 3D PRESS H-1 brain MRSI with an eight-channel phased-array coil at 3 T. Magn Reson Imaging 24: 1295-1302
21. Sjobakk TE, Lundgren S, Kristoffersen A et al (2006) Clinical 1 H magnetic resonance spectroscopy of brain metastases at 1.5 T and 3 T. Acta Radiol 47: 501-508
22. Kim JH, Chang KH, Na DG et al (2006) Comparison of 1.5 T and 3 T 1 H MR spectroscopy for human brain tumors. Korean J Radiol 7: 156-161
23. Al-Kwifi O, Emery DJ,Wilman AH (2002) Vessel contrast at three Tesla in time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography of the intracranial and carotid arteries. Magn Reson Imaging 20: 181-187
24. Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ et al (2005) Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T - initial experience. Radiology 237: 1014-1019
25. Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Ba-Ssalamah A, Mlynarik V et al (2002) Magnetic resonance imaging contrast enhancement of brain tumors at 3 Tesla versus 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 37: 114-119
26. Wolfsberger S, Ba-Ssalamah A, Pinker K et al (2004) Application of three-tesla magnetic resonance imaging for diagnosis and surgery of sellar lesions. J Neurosurg 100: 278-286
27. Ramgren B, Siemund R, Cronqvist M et al (2008) Follow-up of intracranial aneurysms treated with detachable coils: comparison of 3D inflow MRA at 3 T and 1.5 T and contrast-enhanced MRA at 3 T with DSA. Neuroradiology 50: 947-954
28. Knake S, Triantafyllou C, Wald LL et al (2005) 3 T phased array MRI improves the presurgical evaluation in focal epilepsies: a prospective study. Neurology 65: 1026-1031
29. Sawaishi Y, Sasaki M, Yano T, Hirayama A, Akabane J, Takada G (2005) A hippocampal lesion detected by high-field 3 tesla magnetic resonance imaging in a patient with temporal lobe epilepsy. Tohoku J Exp Med 205: 287-291
30. Kim LJ, Lekovic GP, White WL, Karis J (2007) Preliminary experience with 3-Tesla MRI and Cushing's disease. Skill Base 17: 273-277
31. Schaafsma JD, Velthuis BK, Majoie CB et al (2010) Intracranial aneurysms treated with coil placement: test characteristics of followup MR angiography - multicenter study. Radiology 256: 209-218
32. Sicotte NL, Voskuhl RR, Bouvier S, Klutch R, Cohen MS,Mazziotta JC (2003) Comparison of multiple sclerosis lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Invest Radiol 38: 423-427
33. Zou KH, Greve DN, Wang M et al (2005) Reproducibility of functional MR imaging: preliminary results of prospective multiinstitutional study performed by Biomedical Informatics Research Network. Radiology 237: 781-789
34. Bachmann R, Reilmann R, Schwindt W, Kugel H, Heindel W, Kramer S (2006) FLAIR imaging for multiple sclerosis: a comparative MR study at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. Eur Radiol 16: 915-921
35. Kaufmann TJ, Huston J 3rd, Cloft HJ et al (2010) A prospective trial of 3T and 1.5T time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 31: 912-918
36. Wattjes MP, Lutterbey GG, Harzheim M et al (2006) Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T. Eur Radiol 16: 2067-2073
37. Simon B, Schmidt S, Lukas C et al (2010) Improved in vivo detection of cortical lesions in multiple sclerosis using double inversion recovery MR imaging at 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol 20: 1675-1683
38. Buhk JH, Kallenberg K, Mohr A, Dechent P, Knauth M (2008) No advantage of time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography at 3 Tesla compared to 1.5 Tesla in the follow-up after endovascular treatment of cerebral aneurysms. Neuroradiology 50: 855-861
39. Rosso C, Drier A, Lacroix D et al (2010) Diffusion-weighted MRI in acute stroke within the first 6 hours: 1.5 or 3.0 Tesla? Neurology 74: 1946-1953
40. Haacke EM, Makki M, Ge Y et al (2009) Characterizing iron deposition in multiple sclerosis lesions using susceptibility weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 29: 537-544
41. Kuhl CK, Textor J, Gieseke J et al (2005) Acute and subacute ischemic stroke at high-field-strength (3.0-T) diffusion-weighted MR imaging: intraindividual comparative study. Radiology 234: 509-516
42. Heidenreich JO, Schilling AM, Unterharnscheidt F et al (2007) Assessment of 3D-TOF-MRA at 3.0 Tesla in the characterization of the angioarchitecture of cerebral arteriovenous malformations: a preliminary study. Acta Radiol 48: 678-686
43. Stehling C, Wersching H, Kloska SP et al (2008) Detection of asymptomatic cerebral microbleeds: a comparative study at 1.5 and 3.0 T. Acad Radiol 15: 895-900
44. Sohn CH, Sevick RJ, Frayne R, Chang HW, Kim SP, Kim DK (2010) Fluid attenuated inversion recovery (FLAIR) imaging of the normal brain: comparisons between under the conditions of 3.0 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla. Korean J Radiol 11: 19-24
45. van der Zwaag W, Francis S, Head K et al (2009) fMRI at 1.5, 3 and 7 T: characterising BOLD signal changes. Neuroimage 47: 1425-1434
46. Hu HH, Haider CR, Campeau NG, Huston JI, Riederer SJ (2008) Intracranial contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance venography with 6.4-fold sensitivity encoding at 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 27: 653-658
47. Gibbs GF, Huston JI, Bernstein MA, Riederer SJ, Brown RD Jr (2004) Improved image quality of intracranial aneurysms: 3.0-T versus 1.5-T time-of-flight MR angiography. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 25: 84-87
48. Fushimi Y, Miki Y, Kikuta K et al (2006) Comparison of 3.0- and 1.5-T three-dimensional time-of-flight MR angiography in moyamoya disease: preliminary experience. Radiology 239: 232-237
49. Anzalone N, Scomazzoni F, Cirillo M et al (2008) Follow-up of coiled cerebral aneurysms: comparison of three-dimensional timeof- flight magnetic resonance angiography at 3 Tesla with threedimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography at 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 43: 559-567
50. Barth M, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Reichenbach JR et al (2003) High-resolution three-dimensional contrast-enhanced blood oxygenation level-dependent magnetic resonance venography of brain tumors at 3 Tesla: first clinical experience and comparison with 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 38: 409-414
51. Ba-Ssalamah A, Nobauer-Huhmann IM, Pinker K et al (2003) Effect of contrast dose and field strength in the magnetic resonance detection of brain metastases. Invest Radiol 38: 415-422
52. Agati R, Maffei M, Bacci A, Cevolani D, Battaglia S, Leonardi M (2004) 3 T MR assessment of pituitary microadenomas: a report of six cases. Riv Neuroradiol 17: 890-895
53. Nielsen K, Rostrup E, Frederiksen JL et al (2006) Magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 Tesla detects more lesions in acute optic neuritis than at 1.5 Tesla. Invest Radiol 41: 76-82
54. Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Kuhl CK et al (2006) Does high-field MR imaging have an influence on the classification of patients with clinically isolated syndromes according to current diagnostic MR imaging criteria for multiple sclerosis? AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 27: 1794-1798
55. Wattjes MP, Harzheim M, Lutterbey GG et al (2008) Does high field MRI allow an earlier diagnosis of multiple sclerosis? J Neurol 255: 1159-1163
56. Gonen O, Gruber S, Li BS, Mlynarik V, Moser E (2001) Multivoxel 3D proton spectroscopy in the brain at 1.5 versus 3.0 T: signal-to-noise ratio and resolution comparison. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 22: 1727-1731
57. Ethofer T, Mader I, Seeger U et al (2003) Comparison of longitudinal metabolite relaxation times in different regions of the human brain at 1.5 and 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med 50: 1296-1301
58. Benedetti B, Rigotti DJ, Liu S, Filippi M, Grossman RI, Gonen O (2007) Reproducibility of the whole-brain N-acetylaspartate level across institutions, MR scanners, and field strengths. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 28: 72-75
59. Inoue T, Ogasawara K, Kumabe T, Jokura H, Watanabe M, Ogawa A (2005) Minute glioma identified by 3.0 Tesla magnetic resonance spectroscopy - case report. Neurol Med Chir (Tokyo) 45: 108-111
60. Krasnow B, Tamm L, Greicius MD et al (2003) Comparison of fMRI activation at 3 and 1.5 T during perceptual, cognitive, and affective processing. Neuroimage 18: 813-826
61. Fazel R, Krumholz HM, Wang Y et al (2009) Exposure to lowdose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. N Engl J Med 361: 849-857