PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at 3.0 T and 1.5 T by evaluating the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and visibility of breast cancer in the same patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 13 patients (16 lesions) with breast cancer underwent DWI at 3.0 T and 1.5 T. Tumors were classified into two groups based on the lesion size. The ADC values were measured, and visibility of the tumors was scored blindly. RESULTS: No significant difference was found for ADC values between 3.0 T and 1.5 T in either group (P > 0.05). All of the large lesions were visible clearly at both magnetic field strengths, and image scores were not different (P > 0.05). In contrast, small lesions were more clearly visible and had better image scores at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Small cancers were more clearly visible on DWI at 3.0 T than 1.5 T.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) at 3.0 T and 1.5 T by evaluating the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and visibility of breast cancer in the same patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 13 patients (16 lesions) with breast cancer underwent DWI at 3.0 T and 1.5 T. Tumors were classified into two groups based on the lesion size. The ADC values were measured, and visibility of the tumors was scored blindly. RESULTS: No significant difference was found for ADC values between 3.0 T and 1.5 T in either group (P > 0.05). All of the large lesions were visible clearly at both magnetic field strengths, and image scores were not different (P > 0.05). In contrast, small lesions were more clearly visible and had better image scores at 3.0 T than at 1.5 T (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Small cancers were more clearly visible on DWI at 3.0 T than 1.5 T.
Authors: Constance D Lehman; Jeffrey D Blume; Paul Weatherall; David Thickman; Nola Hylton; Ellen Warner; Etta Pisano; Stuart J Schnitt; Constantine Gatsonis; Mitchell Schnall; Gia A DeAngelis; Paul Stomper; Eric L Rosen; Michael O'Loughlin; Steven Harms; David A Bluemke Journal: Cancer Date: 2005-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christiane K Kuhl; Jürgen Gieseke; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Jochen Textor; Sunhild Gernert; Christiane Sonntag; Hans H Schild Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Steven G Lee; Susan G Orel; Irene J Woo; Eva Cruz-Jove; Mary E Putt; Lawrence J Solin; Brian J Czerniecki; Mitchell D Schnall Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-01-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Elizabeth A Morris; Laura Liberman; Douglas J Ballon; Mark Robson; Andrea F Abramson; Alexandra Heerdt; D David Dershaw Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: S Gruber; L Minarikova; K Pinker; O Zaric; M Chmelik; B Strasser; P Baltzer; T Helbich; S Trattnig; W Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2015-08-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: P A T Baltzer; D M Renz; K-H Herrmann; M Dietzel; I Krumbein; M Gajda; O Camara; J R Reichenbach; W A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Benndorf; Matthias Dietzel; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-11-20 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Habib Rahbar; Savannah C Partridge; Peter R Eby; Wendy B Demartini; Robert L Gutierrez; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-05-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Sana Parsian; Habib Rahbar; Kimberly H Allison; Wendy B Demartini; Matthew L Olson; Constance D Lehman; Savannah C Partridge Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-10-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Dorota J Wisner; Nathan Rogers; Vibhas S Deshpande; David N Newitt; Gerhard A Laub; David A Porter; John Kornak; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 4.813