Comparison of Sensitivity Encoding (SENSE) and Compressed Sensing-SENSE for Contrast-Enhanced T1-Weighted Imaging in Patients With Crohn Disease Undergoing MR Enterography

Abstract

BACKGROUND. Long acquisition times for breath-hold contrast-enhanced (CE) T1-weighted imaging in MR enterography (MRE) protocols result in reduced image quality. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to compare CE T1-weighted imaging performed using sensitivity encoding (SENSE) and compressed sensing-SENSE (CS-SENSE) in terms of image quality and diagnostic performance for active inflammation in Crohn disease (CD). METHODS. This retrospective study included 41 patients (31 men, 10 women; mean age, 34 ± 12 [SD] years) who underwent MRE for known or suspected CD between June 2020 and September 2020. MRE was performed in one of two scanning rooms depending on scheduling availability. Per institutional protocol, in one room, the enteric phase was acquired using SENSE (acceleration factor, 3) and the portal phase was acquired using CS-SENSE (acceleration factor, 5); this order was reversed in the other room. Two radiologists independently assessed sequences for subjective image quality measures at the patient level and for active inflammation at the bowel-segment level. Mean image quality scores between readers were computed. Diagnostic performance for active inflammation was compared between SENSE and CS-SENSE using generalized estimating equations; a separate experienced radiologist reviewed the full MRE protocol to establish the reference standard. RESULTS. The mean acquisition time of CE T1-weighted imaging was 17.2 ± 1.1 seconds for SENSE versus 11.5 ± 0.8 seconds for CS-SENSE (p < .001). CS-SENSE scored significantly better than SENSE in overall image quality (4.2 ± 0.7 vs 3.7 ± 1.1; p = .02), motion artifacts (4.0 ± 0.8 vs 3.6 ± 1.2; p = .006), and aliasing artifacts (4.8 ± 0.4 vs 4.2 ± 0.6; p < .001). CS-SENSE scored significantly worse than SENSE in synthetic appearance (4.6 ± 0.5 vs 4.8 ± 0.4; p = .003). Contrast, sharpness, and blurring were not different between sequences (p > .05). For reader 1, CS-SENSE, compared with SENSE, showed a sensitivity of 86% versus 81% (p = .09), specificity of 88% versus 83% (p = .08), and accuracy of 87% versus 82% (p = .56). For reader 2, CS-SENSE, compared with SENSE, showed a sensitivity of 92% versus 79% (p = .006), specificity of 90% versus 98% (p = .16), and accuracy of 91% versus 86% (p = .002). CONCLUSION. Use of CS-SENSE for CE T1-weighted imaging in MRE protocols results in reduced scan times with reduced artifact and improved image quality. CLINICAL IMPACT. The benefits of CS-SENSE in MRE protocols may improve the diagnostic performance for active inflammation in CD.