Literature DB >> 25148189

Comparison of the artifacts caused by metallic implants in breast MRI using dual-echo dixon versus conventional fat-suppression techniques.

Yuan Le1, Hal D Kipfer, Shadie S Majidi, Stephanie Holz, Chen Lin.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate and compare the artifacts caused by metal implants in breast MR images acquired with dual-echo Dixon and two conventional fat-suppression techniques. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Two types of biopsy markers were embedded into a uniform fat-water emulsion. T1-weighted gradient-echo images were acquired on a clinical 3-T MRI scanner with three different fat-suppression techniques-conventional or quick fat saturation, spectrally selective adiabatic inversion recovery (SPAIR), and dual-echo Dixon-and the 3D volumes of artifacts were measured. Among the subjects of a clinical breast MRI study using the same scanner, five patients were found to have one or more metal implants. The artifacts in Dixon and SPAIR fat-suppressed images were evaluated by three radiologists, and the results were compared with those of the phantom study.
RESULTS: In the phantom study, the artifacts appeared as interleaved bright and dark rings on SPAIR and quick-fat-saturation images, whereas they appeared as dark regions with a thin bright rim on Dixon images. The artifacts imaged with the Dixon technique had the smallest total volume. However, the reviewers found larger artifact diameters on patient images using the Dixon sequence because only the central region was recognized as an artifact on the SPAIR images.
CONCLUSION: Metal implants introduce artifacts of different types and sizes, according to the different fat-suppression techniques used. The dual-echo Dixon technique produces a larger central void, allowing the implant to be easily identified, but presents a smaller overall artifact volume by obscuring less area in the image, according to a quantitative phantom study.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dixon; biopsy marker; breast MRI; fat suppression; metal artifact

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25148189     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.10791

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  5 in total

1.  Fat suppression techniques for breast MRI: Dixon versus spectral fat saturation for 3D T1-weighted at 3 T.

Authors:  Anastasia Kalovidouri; Natacha Firmenich; Benedicte M A Delattre; Marlise Picarra; Christoph D Becker; Xavier Montet; Diomidis Botsikas
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2017-06-22       Impact factor: 3.469

2.  Comparative study of fat-suppression techniques for hip arthroplasty MR imaging.

Authors:  Sébastien Molière; Jean-Philippe Dillenseger; Matthieu Ehlinger; Stéphane Kremer; Guillaume Bierry
Journal:  Skeletal Radiol       Date:  2017-05-24       Impact factor: 2.199

Review 3.  Principles of Simultaneous PET/MR Imaging.

Authors:  Ciprian Catana
Journal:  Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.266

4.  Usefulness of two-point Dixon T2-weighted imaging in thyroid-associated ophthalmopathy: comparison with conventional fat saturation imaging in fat suppression quality and staging performance.

Authors:  Lu Chen; Hao Hu; Huan-Huan Chen; Wen Chen; Qian Wu; Fei-Yun Wu; Xiao-Quan Xu
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2020-12-22       Impact factor: 3.039

5.  mDixon ECG-gated 3-dimensional cardiovascular magnetic resonance angiography in patients with congenital cardiovascular disease.

Authors:  Soultana Kourtidou; Marty R Jones; Ryan A Moore; Justin T Tretter; Nicholas J Ollberding; Eric J Crotty; Mantosh S Rattan; Robert J Fleck; Michael D Taylor
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Magn Reson       Date:  2019-08-08       Impact factor: 5.364

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.