@article {Mossa-Basha1756, author = {M. Mossa-Basha and C. Yuan and B.A. Wasserman and D.J. Mikulis and T.S. Hatsukami and N. Balu and A. Gupta and C. Zhu and L. Saba and D. Li and J.K. DeMarco and V.T. Lehman and Y. Qiao and H.R. Jager and M. Wintermark and W. Brinjikji and C.P. Hess and D.A. Saloner}, title = {Survey of the American Society of Neuroradiology Membership on the Use and Value of Extracranial Carotid Vessel Wall MRI}, volume = {43}, number = {12}, pages = {1756--1761}, year = {2022}, doi = {10.3174/ajnr.A7720}, publisher = {American Journal of Neuroradiology}, abstract = {BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Extracranial vessel wall MRI (EC-VWI) contributes to vasculopathy characterization. This survey study investigated EC-VWI adoption by American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR) members and indications and barriers to implementation.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The ASNR Vessel Wall Imaging Study Group survey on EC-VWI use, frequency, applications, MR imaging systems and field strength used, protocol development approaches, vendor engagement, reasons for not using EC-VWI, ordering provider interest, and impact on clinical care was distributed to the ASNR membership between April 2, 2019, to August 30, 2019.RESULTS: There were 532 responses; 79 were excluded due to minimal, incomplete response and 42 due to redundant institutional responses, leaving 411 responses. Twenty-six percent indicated that their institution performed EC-VWI, with 66.3\% performing it <=1{\textendash}2 times per month, most frequently on 3T MR imaging, with most using combined 3D and 2D protocols. Protocols most commonly included pre- and postcontrast T1-weighted imaging, TOF-MRA, and contrast-enhanced MRA. Inflammatory vasculopathy (63.3\%), plaque vulnerability assessments (61.1\%), intraplaque hemorrhage (61.1\%), and dissection-detection/characterization (51.1\%) were the most frequent applications. For those not performing EC-VWI, the reasons were a lack of ordering provider interest (63.9\%), lack of radiologist time/interest (47.5\%) or technical support (41.4\%) for protocol development, and limited interpretation experience (44.9\%) and knowledge of clinical applications (43.7\%). Reasons given by 46.9\% were that no providers approached radiology with interest in EC-VWI. If barriers were overcome, 51.1\% of those not performing EC-VWI indicated they would perform it, and 40.6\% were unsure; 48.6\% did not think that EC-VWI had impacted patient management at their institution.CONCLUSIONS: Only 26\% of neuroradiology groups performed EC-VWI, most commonly due to limited clinician interest. Improved provider and radiologist education, protocols, processing techniques, technical support, and validation trials could increase adoption.EC-VWIextracranial vessel wall MRIIPinternet protocolASNRAmerican Society of Neuroradiology}, issn = {0195-6108}, URL = {https://www.ajnr.org/content/43/12/1756}, eprint = {https://www.ajnr.org/content/43/12/1756.full.pdf}, journal = {American Journal of Neuroradiology} }