OBJECTIVES: Silicone breast prostheses prove technically challenging when performing diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the breasts. We describe a combined fat and chemical suppression scheme to achieve dual suppression of fat and silicone, thereby improving the quality of diffusion-weighted images in women with breast implants. METHODS: MR imaging was performed at 3.0 and 1.5 T in women with silicone breast implants using short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) fat-suppressed echo-planar (EPI) diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) on its own and combined with the slice-select gradient-reversal (SSGR) technique. Imaging was performed using dedicated breast imaging coils. RESULTS: Complete suppression of the fat and silicone signal was possible at 3.0 T using EPI DWI with STIR and SSGR, evaluated with dedicated breast coils. However, a residual silicone signal was still perceptible at 1.5 T using this combined approach. Nevertheless, a further reduction in silicone signal at 1.5 T could be achieved by employing thinner slice partitions and the addition of the chemical-selective fat-suppression (CHESS) technique. CONCLUSIONS: DWI using combined STIR and SSGR chemical suppression techniques is feasible to eliminate or reduce silicone signal from prosthetic breast implants. KEY POINTS: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently needed following breast implants. Unsuppressed signal from silicone creates artefacts on diffusion-weighted MR sequences. Dual fat/chemical suppression can eliminate signal from fat and silicone. STIR with slice selective gradient reversal can suppress fat and silicone signal.
OBJECTIVES:Silicone breast prostheses prove technically challenging when performing diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the breasts. We describe a combined fat and chemical suppression scheme to achieve dual suppression of fat and silicone, thereby improving the quality of diffusion-weighted images in women with breast implants. METHODS: MR imaging was performed at 3.0 and 1.5 T in women with silicone breast implants using short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) fat-suppressed echo-planar (EPI) diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) on its own and combined with the slice-select gradient-reversal (SSGR) technique. Imaging was performed using dedicated breast imaging coils. RESULTS: Complete suppression of the fat and silicone signal was possible at 3.0 T using EPI DWI with STIR and SSGR, evaluated with dedicated breast coils. However, a residual silicone signal was still perceptible at 1.5 T using this combined approach. Nevertheless, a further reduction in silicone signal at 1.5 T could be achieved by employing thinner slice partitions and the addition of the chemical-selective fat-suppression (CHESS) technique. CONCLUSIONS: DWI using combined STIR and SSGR chemical suppression techniques is feasible to eliminate or reduce silicone signal from prosthetic breast implants. KEY POINTS: Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is frequently needed following breast implants. Unsuppressed signal from silicone creates artefacts on diffusion-weighted MR sequences. Dual fat/chemical suppression can eliminate signal from fat and silicone. STIR with slice selective gradient reversal can suppress fat and silicone signal.
Authors: Savannah C Partridge; Revathi S Murthy; Ali Ziadloo; Steven W White; Kimberly H Allison; Constance D Lehman Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Wolfgang Bogner; Stephan Gruber; Katja Pinker; Günther Grabner; Andreas Stadlbauer; Michael Weber; Ewald Moser; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-07-31 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Riham H Ei Khouli; Michael A Jacobs; Sarah D Mezban; Peng Huang; Ihab R Kamel; Katarzyna J Macura; David A Bluemke Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Till-Alexander Heusner; Sherko Kuemmel; Angela Koeninger; Monia E Hamami; Steffen Hahn; Anton Quinsten; Andreas Bockisch; Michael Forsting; Thomas Lauenstein; Gerald Antoch; Alexander Stahl Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2010-03-04 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: A Fangberget; L B Nilsen; K H Hole; M M Holmen; O Engebraaten; B Naume; H-J Smith; D R Olsen; T Seierstad Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2010-12-03 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Megan C Jacobsen; Basak E Dogan; Beatriz E Adrada; Jeri Sue Plaxco; Wei Wei; Jong Bum Son; John D Hazle; Jingfei Ma Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2015 May-Jun Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Thorsten R C Johnson; Isabelle Himsl; Karin Hellerhoff; Doris Mayr; Dorothea Rjosk-Dendorfer; Nina Ditsch; Bernhard Krauss; Klaus Friese; Maximilian F Reiser; Miriam S Lenhard Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: N M deSouza; J M Winfield; J C Waterton; A Weller; M-V Papoutsaki; S J Doran; D J Collins; L Fournier; D Sullivan; T Chenevert; A Jackson; M Boss; S Trattnig; Y Liu Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315