PURPOSE: To compare two fat suppression methods in contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast cancer at 3.0 T: the two-point Dixon method and the frequency selective inversion method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty female patients with breast cancer underwent contrast-enhanced three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T. Both the two-point Dixon method and the frequency selective inversion method were applied. Quantitative analyses of the residual fat signal-to-noise ratio and the contrast noise ratio (CNR) of lesion-to-breast parenchyma, lesion-to-fat, and parenchyma-to-fat were performed. Qualitative analyses of the uniformity of fat suppression, image contrast, and the visibility of breast lesions and axillary metastatic adenopathy were performed. RESULTS: The signal-to-noise ratio was significantly lower in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001). All CNR values were significantly higher in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). According to qualitative analysis, both the uniformity of fat suppression and image contrast with the two-point Dixon method were significantly higher (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Visibility of breast lesions and metastatic adenopathy was significantly better in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: The two-point Dixon method suppressed the fat signal more potently and improved contrast and visibility of the breast lesions and axillary adenopathy.
PURPOSE: To compare two fat suppression methods in contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast cancer at 3.0 T: the two-point Dixon method and the frequency selective inversion method. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty female patients with breast cancer underwent contrast-enhanced three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T. Both the two-point Dixon method and the frequency selective inversion method were applied. Quantitative analyses of the residual fat signal-to-noise ratio and the contrast noise ratio (CNR) of lesion-to-breast parenchyma, lesion-to-fat, and parenchyma-to-fat were performed. Qualitative analyses of the uniformity of fat suppression, image contrast, and the visibility of breast lesions and axillary metastatic adenopathy were performed. RESULTS: The signal-to-noise ratio was significantly lower in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001). All CNR values were significantly higher in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). According to qualitative analysis, both the uniformity of fat suppression and image contrast with the two-point Dixon method were significantly higher (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Visibility of breast lesions and metastatic adenopathy was significantly better in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). CONCLUSION: The two-point Dixon method suppressed the fat signal more potently and improved contrast and visibility of the breast lesions and axillary adenopathy.
Authors: Pascal A T Baltzer; Matthias Dietzel; Hartmut P Burmeister; Ramy Zoubi; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Werner A Kaiser Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-05 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Robert L Gutierrez; Roberta M Strigel; Savannah C Partridge; Wendy B DeMartini; Peter R Eby; Karen M Stone; Sue Peacock; Constance D Lehman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Huong T Le-Petross; Massimo Cristofanilli; Selin Carkaci; Savitri Krishnamurthy; Edward F Jackson; Robyn K Harrell; Brandy J Reed; Wei T Yang Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: A D Murray; R T Staff; T W Redpath; F J Gilbert; A K Ah-See; J A Brookes; I D Miller; S Payne Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: R W Kerslake; P J Carleton; J N Fox; M J Imrie; A M Cook; J R Read; S J Bowsley; D L Buckley; A Horsman Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 1995-07 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Christina M Wendl; Johannes Eiglsperger; Lena-Marie Dendl; Harald Brodoefel; Karl-Michael Schebesch; Christian Stroszczynski; Claudia Fellner Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-02-23 Impact factor: 3.039