Quantifying the Financial Savings of Motion Correction in Brain MRI: A Model‐Based Estimate of the Costs Arising From Patient Head Motion and Potential Savings From Implementation of Motion Correction

Background Patient head motion is a major concern in clinical brain MRI, as it reduces the diagnostic image quality and may increase examination time and cost. Purpose To investigate the prevalence of MR images with significant motion artifacts on a given clinical scanner and to estimate the potential financial cost savings of applying motion correction to clinical brain MRI examinations. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects In all, 173 patients undergoing a PET/MRI dementia protocol and 55 pediatric patients undergoing a PET/MRI brain tumor protocol. The total scan time of the two protocols were 17 and 40 minutes, respectively. Field Strength/Sequences 3 T, Siemens mMR Biograph, MPRAGE, DWI, T1 and T2‐weighted FLAIR, T2‐weighted 2D‐FLASH, T2‐weighted TSE. Assessment A retrospective review of image sequences from a given clinical MRI scanner was conducted to investigate the prevalence of motion‐corrupted images. The review was performed by three radiologists with different levels of experience using a three‐step semiquantitative scale to classify the quality of the images. A total of 1013 sequences distributed on 228 MRI examinations were reviewed. The potential cost savings of motion correction were estimated by a cost estimation for our country with assumptions. Statistical Test The cost estimation was conducted with a 20% lower and upper bound on the model assumptions to include the uncertainty of the assumptions. Results 7.9% of the sequences had motion artifacts that decreased the interpretability, while 2.0% of the sequences had motion artifacts causing the images to be nondiagnostic. The estimated annual cost to the clinic/hospital due to patient head motion per scanner was $45,066 without pediatric examinations and $364,242 with pediatric examinations. Data Conclusion The prevalence of a motion‐corrupted image was found in 2.0% of the reviewed sequences. Based on the model, repayment periods are presented as a function of the price for applying motion correction and its performance. Evidence Level 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 6 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2020;52:731–738.