OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of 7-T contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious masses. METHODS: Twenty patients with 23 suspicious breast masses on conventional imaging (mean size 13 mm, range 5-27 mm) were examined at 7 T. The MRI protocol included a dynamic series with injection of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobutrol (seven consecutive 3D T1-weighted gradient echo sequences, resolution 1 × 1 × 2 mm(3), temporal resolution 63 s) and ultra-high-resolution imaging (T1-weighted 3D gradient echo sequence, resolution 0.45 × 0.57 × 0.45 mm(3)). Two observers (R1 and R2) independently judged the examinations on image quality and classified lesions according to BI-RADS. The added value of ultra-high-resolution imaging was assessed. RESULTS: The image quality was deemed excellent in 1 and 0, good in 10 and 12, sufficient in 8 and 8, and insufficient in 1 and 0 for R1 and R2 respectively. Twenty of the 23 lesions were identified at 7-T MRI by both observers. All histopathologically proven malignant lesions (n = 19) were identified and classified as BI-RADS-MRI 4 or 5. Ultra-high-resolution imaging increased reader confidence in 88 % (R1) and 59 % (R2) of acquisitions. CONCLUSION: The study shows the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced 7-T breast MRI, where all malignant mass lesions were identified by two observers. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance imaging is important in the evaluation of breast cancer. • Recently, 7-T MRI has become available. • The 7-T dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI is feasible in patients. • The 7-T breast examinations are amenable to evaluation according to BI-RADS.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of 7-T contrast-enhanced breast MRI in patients with suspicious masses. METHODS: Twenty patients with 23 suspicious breast masses on conventional imaging (mean size 13 mm, range 5-27 mm) were examined at 7 T. The MRI protocol included a dynamic series with injection of 0.1 mmol/kg gadobutrol (seven consecutive 3D T1-weighted gradient echo sequences, resolution 1 × 1 × 2 mm(3), temporal resolution 63 s) and ultra-high-resolution imaging (T1-weighted 3D gradient echo sequence, resolution 0.45 × 0.57 × 0.45 mm(3)). Two observers (R1 and R2) independently judged the examinations on image quality and classified lesions according to BI-RADS. The added value of ultra-high-resolution imaging was assessed. RESULTS: The image quality was deemed excellent in 1 and 0, good in 10 and 12, sufficient in 8 and 8, and insufficient in 1 and 0 for R1 and R2 respectively. Twenty of the 23 lesions were identified at 7-T MRI by both observers. All histopathologically proven malignant lesions (n = 19) were identified and classified as BI-RADS-MRI 4 or 5. Ultra-high-resolution imaging increased reader confidence in 88 % (R1) and 59 % (R2) of acquisitions. CONCLUSION: The study shows the feasibility of dynamic contrast-enhanced 7-T breast MRI, where all malignant mass lesions were identified by two observers. KEY POINTS: • Magnetic resonance imaging is important in the evaluation of breast cancer. • Recently, 7-T MRI has become available. • The 7-T dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI is feasible in patients. • The 7-T breast examinations are amenable to evaluation according to BI-RADS.
Authors: Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Eline E Deurloo; Sara H Muller; Johannes L Peterse; Leo J Schultze Kool Journal: Radiology Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nicky H G M Peters; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Nicolaas P A Zuithoff; Willem P T M Mali; Karel G M Moons; Petra H M Peeters Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Ihab S Haddadin; Adeka McIntosh; Sina Meisamy; Curt Corum; Angela L Styczynski Snyder; Nathaniel J Powell; Michael T Nelson; Douglas Yee; Michael Garwood; Patrick J Bolan Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Mies A Korteweg; Wouter B Veldhuis; Fredy Visser; Peter R Luijten; Willem P Th M Mali; Paul J van Diest; Maurice A A J van den Bosch; Dennis J Klomp Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Dennis W J Klomp; Bart L van de Bank; Alexander Raaijmakers; Mies A Korteweg; Cecilia Possanzini; Vincent O Boer; Cornelius A T van de Berg; Maurice A A J van de Bosch; Peter R Luijten Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2011-03-24 Impact factor: 4.044
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: Romina Del Bosque; Jiaming Cui; Stephen Ogier; Sergey Cheshkov; Ivan E Dimitrov; Craig Malloy; Steven M Wright; Mary McDougall Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2020-08-09 Impact factor: 4.668
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: Gisela Lg Menezes; Floor M Knuttel; Bertine L Stehouwer; Ruud M Pijnappel; Maurice Aaj van den Bosch Journal: World J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-05-10
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
Authors: Michael J van Rijssel; Josien P W Pluim; Peter R Luijten; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Alexander J E Raaijmakers; Dennis W J Klomp Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2018-03-23 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Brittany Z Dashevsky; Timothy D'Alfonso; Elizabeth J Sutton; Ashley Giambrone; Eric Aronowitz; Elizabeth A Morris; Krishna Juluru; Douglas J Ballon Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2015-12-07 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Michael J van Rijssel; Josien P W Pluim; Hui-Shan M Chan; Lieke van den Wildenberg; Alexander M Th Schmitz; Peter R Luijten; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs; Dennis W J Klomp Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2019-12-27 Impact factor: 4.668