Literature DB >> 16549623

Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience.

Christiane K Kuhl1, Petra Jost, Nuschin Morakkabati, Oliver Zivanovic, Hans H Schild, Jürgen Gieseke.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To establish a pulse sequence for dynamic contrast material-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast at 3.0 T and to prospectively compare MR imaging at 3.0 T with MR imaging at 1.5 T in the same patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective intraindividual internal review board-approved study was performed in 37 women with 53 lesions (25 breast cancers, 28 benign focal lesions) who underwent contrast-enhanced dynamic bilateral subtraction MR imaging twice, once at 1.5 T with a standard technique (voxel size, 1.44 mm3) and once at 3.0 T (voxel size, 0.45-0.72 mm3) with variable repetition time and flip angle settings. Written informed consent was obtained. Sagittal single breast high-spatial-resolution MR imaging was performed with active fat suppression. Image quality, number and features of enhancing lesions, and Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System categories were compared by using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test and Student t test for matched pairs. Diagnostic confidence was compared by using a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.
RESULTS: With repetition time prolonged to account for longer T1 relaxation times at 3.0 T and a flip angle of 60 degrees, enhancement rates at 3.0 T were substantially below those at 1.5 T. In two patients with benign lesions, enhancement was rated as insufficient to establish diagnosis. When parameter settings were kept equivalent, equivalent enhancement rates were observed with both systems. With these settings, 3.0-T MR imaging yielded homogeneous signal intensity over the entire field of view. No dielectric resonance effects were observed. Overall image quality scores for the dynamic series were slightly higher at 3.0 T (P<.01). A total of 49 lesions were prospectively identified with both systems. Owing to substantial patient motion at 1.5 T, two malignant lesions in one patient were visualized at 3.0 T only. At 3.0 T, differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions was possible with higher diagnostic confidence, as reflected by a larger area under the ROC curve (P<.05).
CONCLUSION: Initial experiences indicate that contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T is nearing readiness for clinical use. Copyright (c) RSNA, 2006.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16549623     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2392050509

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  48 in total

1.  [Functional and molecular imaging of breast tumors].

Authors:  K Pinker; P Brader; G Karanikas; K El-Rabadi; W Bogner; S Gruber; M Reisegger; S Trattnig; T H Helbich
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 0.635

2.  Classification of small contrast enhancing breast lesions in dynamic magnetic resonance imaging using a combination of morphological criteria and dynamic analysis based on unsupervised vector-quantization.

Authors:  Thomas Schlossbauer; Gerda Leinsinger; Axel Wismuller; Oliver Lange; Michael Scherr; Anke Meyer-Baese; Maximilian Reiser
Journal:  Invest Radiol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 6.016

3.  Contrast-enhanced 3.0-T breast MRI for characterization of breast lesions: increased specificity by using vascular maps.

Authors:  A C Schmitz; N H G M Peters; W B Veldhuis; A M Fernandez Gallardo; P J van Diest; G Stapper; R van Hillegersberg; W P Th M Mali; M A A J van den Bosch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-20       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced and ultra-high-resolution breast MRI at 7.0 Tesla.

Authors:  Bertine L Stehouwer; Dennis W J Klomp; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Mies A Korteweg; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Arjen J Witkamp; Paul J van Diest; Karel A F Houwert; Wybe J M van der Kemp; Peter R Luijten; W P Th M Mali; Wouter B Veldhuis
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-08-28       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  3-T breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with suspicious microcalcifications on mammography.

Authors:  B L Stehouwer; L G Merckel; H M Verkooijen; N H G M Peters; R M Mann; K M Duvivier; W P Th M Mali; P H M Peeters; W B Veldhuis; M A A J van den Bosch
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 5.315

6.  Clinical application of bilateral high temporal and spatial resolution dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast at 7 T.

Authors:  K Pinker; W Bogner; P Baltzer; S Trattnig; S Gruber; O Abeyakoon; M Bernathova; O Zaric; P Dubsky; Z Bago-Horvath; M Weber; D Leithner; T H Helbich
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-12-05       Impact factor: 5.315

7.  The features of breast lymphoma on MRI.

Authors:  K Liu; P Xie; W Peng; Z Zhou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2013-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

8.  Molecular Imaging in Breast Cancer - Potential Future Aspects.

Authors:  Katja Pinker; Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Peter Brader; Siegfried Trattnig; Georgios Karanikas; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  Current Status and New Developments in Breast MRI.

Authors:  Katja C Siegmann; Bernhard Krämer; Claus Claussen
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2011-04-29       Impact factor: 2.860

10.  Diffusion-weighted imaging in breast lesion evaluation.

Authors:  P Belli; M Costantini; E Bufi; A Magistrelli; G La Torre; L Bonomo
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2009-11-09       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.