Skip to main content
Advertisement

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home

User menu

  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
American Journal of Neuroradiology
American Journal of Neuroradiology

American Journal of Neuroradiology

ASHNR American Society of Functional Neuroradiology ASHNR American Society of Pediatric Neuroradiology ASSR
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • Article Preview
    • Past Issue Archive
    • Video Articles
    • AJNR Case Collection
    • Case of the Week Archive
    • Case of the Month Archive
    • Classic Case Archive
  • Special Collections
    • AJNR Awards
    • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
    • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
    • Photon-Counting CT
    • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)
  • Multimedia
    • AJNR Podcasts
    • AJNR SCANtastic
    • Trainee Corner
    • MRI Safety Corner
    • Imaging Protocols
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Submit a Video Article
    • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
    • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
    • Statistical Tips
    • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
    • Graphical Abstract Preparation
    • Imaging Protocol Submission
    • Author Policies
  • About Us
    • About AJNR
    • Editorial Board
    • Editorial Board Alumni
  • More
    • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
    • Alerts
    • Feedback
    • Advertisers
    • ASNR Home
  • Follow AJNR on Twitter
  • Visit AJNR on Facebook
  • Follow AJNR on Instagram
  • Join AJNR on LinkedIn
  • RSS Feeds

AJNR is seeking candidates for the AJNR Podcast Editor. Read the position description.

LetterLETTER

Reply

Elias R. Melhem
American Journal of Neuroradiology July 1999, 20 (7) 1382-1383;
Elias R. Melhem
c The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions Baltimore, MD
M.D
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

I would like to thank Drs. Patel and Klufas for their interest and comments regarding our recent publication in the AJNR (1).

We agree with Drs. Patel and Klufas regarding the issue of paramagnetic brain lesion demonstration as a function of the MR imaging technique used. We have demonstrated that GRASE imaging performs better than fast spin-echo imaing in this respect. This can be explained by two factors. First, despite the implementation of multiple 180º refocusing RF pulses, the effects of static magnetic field inhomogeneity in GRASE imaging are not minimized to the same degree as in fast spin-echo imaging. This is related to the off-resonance echoes used to fill the periphery of k-space (2). The greater the number of these off-resonance echoes, the greater is their representation in the center of k-space and, hence, the greater is their contribution to the overall image signal. Second, the effects of time-varying magnetic field variability are more pronounced in GRASE compared to fast spin-echo techniques. This is related to differences between the two techniques regarding the shortest achievable time interval between the Hahn spin-echo. In GRASE imaging, this interval has to be longer in order to accommodate the multiple gradient-echo reversals (3–5).

Formal comparison between GRASE imaging and conventional spin-echo and gradient-recall echo imaging, as related to the demonstration of paramagnetic brain lesions, is lacking. We believe, however, that both conventional spin-echo and optimized gradient-recall echo readouts are superior for the demonstration of paramagnetic brain lesions to the GRASE technique currently in question. As a result of much longer echo-times (echo-spacing), selective T2 relaxation enhancement from molecular diffusion through regions of variable magnetic field is much greater in conventional spin-echo imaging than in GRASE imaging. The effects of accumulated phase and chemical shifts in the few non-Hahn echoes acquired in our GRASE technique are probably not enough to outweigh the differences in echo-times (echo-spacing). This, however, may not be true for GRASE techniques implementing a greater number of gradient echoes per 180º–180º interval. Also, in gradient-echo recall imaging, with relatively long echo-times optimized for paramagnetic brain lesion detection, both static and time-varying magnetic field inhomogeneities contribute to selective T2 relaxation enhancement, resulting in exaggeration of signal loss compared to GRASE imaging (6).

Hyperintense brain lesion demonstration on MR images depends on contrast resolution, spatial resolution, signal-to-noise, and artifacts related to human and technical factors. When contrast resolution, spatial resolution, and signal-to-noise are identical across the different MR imaging techniques, and the human factor is eliminated, conventional spin-echo techniques probably will be superior to the different fast hybrid spin echo–based techniques. This is because of the inherent technique-related artifacts. In both fast spin-echo and GRASE imaging, there is further modulation in signal along the phase-encoding direction related to T2-decay resulting from variable echo times. This modulation affects the spatial-encoding process in the phase direction and results in ghosting and blurring artifacts. These artifacts are proportional to the number of echoes per TR interval, the echo-spacing, and the scheme used to fill k-space. Shorter echo-spacing (between the echoes within a 180º–180º interval) and nonsequential (interleaved) phase-encode ordering through the echo train in GRASE imaging actually may reduce signal modulation between segments of k-space compared to fast spin-echo techniques (7).

It is important to emphasize that, with fast hybrid MR imaging techniques, high temporal resolution can be exchanged for better spatial resolution, signal-to-noise, and contrast resolution (longer TR). In our study, a longer TR was used with the faster GRASE technique whereas the scan time per sequence similar remained the same. This may explain partially the better demonstration of hyperintense brain lesions on GRASE images. Also, fast imaging reduces the chance of human-related image artifacts. The effect of these artifacts commonly outweigh differences in inherent technique-specific artifacts.

We agree with Drs. Patel and Klufas that the advantages and disadvantages of fast MR imaging techniques compared to conventional spin-echo have to be tested in the clinical setting. In addition to differences in MR imaging hardware and software available at various clinical sites, practicing radiologists have to factor in the type of patients being imaged.

Continual improvements in MR hardware performance and pulse sequence design has and will continue to reduce the need for T2-weighted conventional spin-echo techniques. I also would like to point out that optimized high resolution (256 × 512 matrix), T2-weighted GRASE imaging already has replaced both conventional and fast spin-echo techniques for routine brain imaging at several clinical sites in Europe and the United States.

References

  1. 7.
    Rockwell D, Melhem ER, Bhatia R. GRASE (gradient- and spin-echo) MR imaging of the brain.. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 1997;18:1923-1928
    Abstract
  2. 8.
    Mugler JP III, Brookeman JR, Off-resonance image artifacts in interleaved-EPI and GRASE pulse sequences.. Magn Reson Med 1996;36:306-313
    PubMed
  3. 9.
    Feinberg DA, Oshio K. GRASE (gradient- and spin-echo) MR imaging: a new fast clinical imaging technique.. Radiology 1991;181:597-602
    PubMed
  4. 10.
    Oshio K, Feinberg DA. GRASE (gradient- and spin-echo) MR imaging: A novel fast MRI technique.. Magn Reson Med 1991;20:344-349
    CrossRefPubMed
  5. 11.
    Feinberg DA, Berthold K, Litt AW. Dual contrast GRASE (gradient-spin echo) imaging using mixed bandwidth.. Magn Reson Med 1994;31:461-464
    CrossRefPubMed
  6. 12.
    Luedeke KM, Roeschmann P, Tischler R. Susceptibility artifacts in NMR imaging.. Magn Reson Imaging 1985;3:329-343
    CrossRefPubMed
  7. 13.
    Melhem ER, Patel R, Rockwell D, Whitehead RE, Bhatia R, Jara H. Utility of dual-echo gradient- and spin-echo (GRASE) MR imaging of the brain: a comparison to fast spin-echo.. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:797-802
    PubMed
  • Copyright © American Society of Neuroradiology
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

American Journal of Neuroradiology
Vol. 20, Issue 7
1 Jul 1999
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Advertisement
Print
Download PDF
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on American Journal of Neuroradiology.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reply
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Journal of Neuroradiology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Journal of Neuroradiology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Cite this article
Elias R. Melhem
Reply
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jul 1999, 20 (7) 1382-1383;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
0 Responses
Respond to this article
Share
Bookmark this article
Reply
Elias R. Melhem
American Journal of Neuroradiology Jul 1999, 20 (7) 1382-1383;
del.icio.us logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • Responses
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Crossref
  • Google Scholar

This article has not yet been cited by articles in journals that are participating in Crossref Cited-by Linking.

More in this TOC Section

  • Letter to the Editor regarding “Automated Volumetric Software in Dementia: Help or Hindrance to the Neuroradiologist?”
  • Reply:
  • Brain AVM’s Nidus: What if We Hadn’t Understood Anything?
Show more Letter

Similar Articles

Advertisement

Indexed Content

  • Current Issue
  • Accepted Manuscripts
  • Article Preview
  • Past Issues
  • Editorials
  • Editor's Choice
  • Fellows' Journal Club
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Video Articles

Cases

  • Case Collection
  • Archive - Case of the Week
  • Archive - Case of the Month
  • Archive - Classic Case

Special Collections

  • AJNR Awards
  • ASNR Foundation Special Collection
  • Most Impactful AJNR Articles
  • Photon-Counting CT
  • Spinal CSF Leak Articles (Jan 2020-June 2024)

More from AJNR

  • Trainee Corner
  • Imaging Protocols
  • MRI Safety Corner

Multimedia

  • AJNR Podcasts
  • AJNR Scantastics

Resources

  • Turnaround Time
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Submit a Video Article
  • Submit an eLetter to the Editor/Response
  • Manuscript Submission Guidelines
  • Statistical Tips
  • Fast Publishing of Accepted Manuscripts
  • Graphical Abstract Preparation
  • Imaging Protocol Submission
  • Evidence-Based Medicine Level Guide
  • Publishing Checklists
  • Author Policies
  • Become a Reviewer/Academy of Reviewers
  • News and Updates

About Us

  • About AJNR
  • Editorial Board
  • Editorial Board Alumni
  • Alerts
  • Permissions
  • Not an AJNR Subscriber? Join Now
  • Advertise with Us
  • Librarian Resources
  • Feedback
  • Terms and Conditions
  • AJNR Editorial Board Alumni

American Society of Neuroradiology

  • Not an ASNR Member? Join Now

© 2025 by the American Society of Neuroradiology All rights, including for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies, are reserved.
Print ISSN: 0195-6108 Online ISSN: 1936-959X

Powered by HighWire