PURPOSE: A number of women who should undergo magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast cannot use this diagnostic tool due to claustrophobia or excessive body size for the restricted confines of standard closed MR systems. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of open low-field magnet breast MR imaging in such patients using a high-relaxivity contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 397 consecutive patients undergoing breast MR imaging, 379 (95.5%) were studied at 1.5 T. Due to claustrophobia (n=15) or large body size (n=3), 18 patients (4.5%) were studied on a 0.2-T open magnet using a body coil. A 3D dynamic T1-weighted gradient-echo 94-s sequence was acquired with intravenous injection of gadobenate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg). The standard of reference was pathological examination for 16 lesions classified with a maximal Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score from 3 to 5, fine-needle aspiration cytology and >or=2-year follow-up for two lesions classified as BI-RADS 3, and >or=2-years follow-up for five lesions classified as BI-RADS 2. RESULTS: Diagnostic MR image quality was achieved for 20/23 lesions in 15/18 patients. Three lesions (two invasive cancers and a cyst) were not assessed due to patient movement and considered as two false negatives and one false positive. Thus, an 86% sensitivity [13/15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 70%-100%], an 87% specificity (7/8; 95% CI: 65%-100%) and an 87% accuracy (20/23; 95% CI: 73%-100%) were obtained. The intraclass correlation coefficient between MR and pathologic lesion size was 0.845. CONCLUSION: In claustrophobic or oversized patients, open low-field breast MR with gadobenate dimeglumine yields good diagnostic performance.
PURPOSE: A number of women who should undergo magnetic resonance (MR) imaging of the breast cannot use this diagnostic tool due to claustrophobia or excessive body size for the restricted confines of standard closed MR systems. Our aim was to evaluate the performance of open low-field magnet breast MR imaging in such patients using a high-relaxivity contrast agent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 397 consecutive patients undergoing breast MR imaging, 379 (95.5%) were studied at 1.5 T. Due to claustrophobia (n=15) or large body size (n=3), 18 patients (4.5%) were studied on a 0.2-T open magnet using a body coil. A 3D dynamic T1-weighted gradient-echo 94-s sequence was acquired with intravenous injection of gadobenate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg). The standard of reference was pathological examination for 16 lesions classified with a maximal Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score from 3 to 5, fine-needle aspiration cytology and >or=2-year follow-up for two lesions classified as BI-RADS 3, and >or=2-years follow-up for five lesions classified as BI-RADS 2. RESULTS: Diagnostic MR image quality was achieved for 20/23 lesions in 15/18 patients. Three lesions (two invasive cancers and a cyst) were not assessed due to patient movement and considered as two false negatives and one false positive. Thus, an 86% sensitivity [13/15; 95% confidence interval (CI): 70%-100%], an 87% specificity (7/8; 95% CI: 65%-100%) and an 87% accuracy (20/23; 95% CI: 73%-100%) were obtained. The intraclass correlation coefficient between MR and pathologic lesion size was 0.845. CONCLUSION: In claustrophobic or oversized patients, open low-field breast MR with gadobenate dimeglumine yields good diagnostic performance.
Authors: Francesco Sardanelli; Gian M Giuseppetti; Pietro Panizza; Massimo Bazzocchi; Alfonso Fausto; Giovanni Simonetti; Vincenzo Lattanzio; Alessandro Del Maschio Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Federica Pediconi; Carlo Catalano; Simona Padula; Antonella Roselli; Enrica Moriconi; Valeria Dominelli; Anna Maria Pronio; Miles A Kirchin; Roberto Passariello Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-01-03 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: H Kawashima; O Matsui; M Suzuki; M Kadoya; M Tawara; A Nonomura; M Noguchi; T Takashima Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Cynthia L Ogden; Margaret D Carroll; Lester R Curtin; Margaret A McDowell; Carolyn J Tabak; Katherine M Flegal Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-04-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L Ballesio; C Maggi; S Savelli; M Angeletti; C De Felice; M L Meggiorini; L Manganaro; L M Porfiri Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2008-04-02 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Puja Shahrouki; Kim-Lien Nguyen; John M Moriarty; Adam N Plotnik; Takegawa Yoshida; J Paul Finn Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2021-09-01 Impact factor: 3.629
Authors: Wendie A Berg; Jeffrey D Blume; Amanda M Adams; Roberta A Jong; Richard G Barr; Daniel E Lehrer; Etta D Pisano; W Phil Evans; Mary C Mahoney; Linda Hovanessian Larsen; Glenna J Gabrielli; Ellen B Mendelson Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Judith Enders; Matthias Rief; Elke Zimmermann; Patrick Asbach; Gerd Diederichs; Christoph Wetz; Eberhard Siebert; Moritz Wagner; Bernd Hamm; Marc Dewey Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-31 Impact factor: 3.240