OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the image quality of T1-weighted fat-suppressed breast MRI at 7 T and to compare 7-T and 3-T images. METHODS:Seventeen subjects were imaged using a7-T bilateral transmit-receive coil and 3D gradient echo sequence with adiabatic inversion-based fat suppression (FS). Images were graded on a five-point scale and quantitatively assessed through signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), fibroglandular/fat contrast and signal uniformity measurements. RESULTS: Image scores at 7 and 3 T were similar on standard-resolution images (1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1-1.6 mm(3)), indicating that high-quality breast imaging with clinical parameters can be performed at 7 T. The 7-T SNR advantage was underscored on 0.6-mm isotropic images, where image quality was significantly greater than at 3 T (4.2 versus 3.1, P ≤ 0.0001). Fibroglandular/fat contrast was more than two times higher at 7 T than at 3 T, owing to effective adiabatic inversion-based FS and the inherent 7-T signal advantage. Signal uniformity was comparable at 7 and 3 T (P < 0.05). Similar 7-T image quality was observed in all subjects, indicating robustness against anatomical variation. CONCLUSION: The 7-T bilateral transmit-receive coil and adiabatic inversion-based FS technique produce image quality that is as good as or better than at 3 T. KEY POINTS: • High image quality bilateral breast MRI is achievable with clinical parameters at 7 T. • 7-T high-resolution imaging improves delineation of subtle soft tissue structures. • Adiabatic-based fat suppression provides excellent fibroglandular/fat contrast at 7 T. • 7- and 3-T 3D T1-weighted gradient-echo images have similar signal uniformity. • The 7-T dual solenoid coil enables bilateral imaging without compromising uniformity.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the image quality of T1-weighted fat-suppressed breast MRI at 7 T and to compare 7-T and 3-T images. METHODS: Seventeen subjects were imaged using a 7-T bilateral transmit-receive coil and 3D gradient echo sequence with adiabatic inversion-based fat suppression (FS). Images were graded on a five-point scale and quantitatively assessed through signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), fibroglandular/fat contrast and signal uniformity measurements. RESULTS: Image scores at 7 and 3 T were similar on standard-resolution images (1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1-1.6 mm(3)), indicating that high-quality breast imaging with clinical parameters can be performed at 7 T. The 7-T SNR advantage was underscored on 0.6-mm isotropic images, where image quality was significantly greater than at 3 T (4.2 versus 3.1, P ≤ 0.0001). Fibroglandular/fat contrast was more than two times higher at 7 T than at 3 T, owing to effective adiabatic inversion-based FS and the inherent 7-T signal advantage. Signal uniformity was comparable at 7 and 3 T (P < 0.05). Similar 7-T image quality was observed in all subjects, indicating robustness against anatomical variation. CONCLUSION: The 7-T bilateral transmit-receive coil and adiabatic inversion-based FS technique produce image quality that is as good as or better than at 3 T. KEY POINTS: • High image quality bilateral breast MRI is achievable with clinical parameters at 7 T. • 7-T high-resolution imaging improves delineation of subtle soft tissue structures. • Adiabatic-based fat suppression provides excellent fibroglandular/fat contrast at 7 T. • 7- and 3-T 3D T1-weighted gradient-echo images have similar signal uniformity. • The 7-T dual solenoid coil enables bilateral imaging without compromising uniformity.
Authors: Scott B Reeder; Zhifei Wen; Huanzhou Yu; Angel R Pineda; Garry E Gold; Michael Markl; Norbert J Pelc Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: B L van de Bank; I J Voogt; M Italiaander; B L Stehouwer; V O Boer; P R Luijten; D W J Klomp Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2012-10-18 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Carsten Krautmacher; Winfried A Willinek; Henriette J Tschampa; Mark Born; Frank Träber; Jürgen Gieseke; Hans J Textor; Hans H Schild; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-10-19 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Yujuan Zhao; Tiejun Zhao; Shailesh B Raval; Narayanan Krishnamurthy; Hai Zheng; Chad T Harris; William B Handler; Blaine A Chronik; Tamer S Ibrahim Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-11-03 Impact factor: 4.668
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
Authors: Jiaming Cui; John C Bosshard; Joseph V Rispoli; Ivan E Dimitrov; Sergey Cheshkov; Mary Preston McDougall; Craig Malloy; Steven M Wright Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: J M Theysohn; O Kraff; N Theysohn; S Orzada; S Landgraeber; M E Ladd; T C Lauenstein Journal: Skeletal Radiol Date: 2014-02-05 Impact factor: 2.199
Authors: Samantha By; Joseph V Rispoli; Sergey Cheshkov; Ivan Dimitrov; Jiaming Cui; Stephen Seiler; Sally Goudreau; Craig Malloy; Steven M Wright; Mary Preston McDougall Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-11-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Gisela L G Menezes; Bertine L Stehouwer; Dennis W J Klomp; Tijl A van der Velden; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Floortje M Knuttel; Vincent O Boer; Wybe J M van der Kemp; Peter R Luijten; Wouter B Veldhuis Journal: Springerplus Date: 2016-01-05