PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to perform a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the performance of two fat suppression techniques on breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one women underwent clinical breast magnetic resonance imaging, including DWI with short TI inversion recovery (STIR) and spectral attenuated inversion recovery (SPAIR). Four were excluded from the analysis due to image artefacts. Rating of fat suppression uniformity and lesion visibility were performed. Agreement between the two sequences was evaluated. Additionally, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for normal gland, benign and malignant lesions were compared. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was also performed. RESULTS: From the 52 lesions found, 47 were detected by both sequences. DWI-STIR evidenced more homogeneous fat suppression (p = 0.03). Although these lesions were seen with both techniques, DWI-SPAIR evidenced higher score for lesion visibility in nine of them. SNR and CNR were comparable, except for SNR in benign lesions (p < 0.01), which was higher for DWI-SPAIR. Mean ADC values for lesions were similar. ADC for normal fibroglandular tissue was higher when using DWI-STIR (p = 0.006). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the curve values were alike: 84.0 % for both; 77.3, 71.4 %; 80.9, 78.3 %; 82.5, 81.3 % for DWI-SPAIR and DWI-STIR, respectively. CONCLUSION: DWI-STIR showed superior fat suppression homogeneity. No differences were found for SNR and CNR, except for SNR in benign lesions. ADCs for lesions were comparable. Findings in this study are consistent with previous studies at 1.5 T, meaning that both fat suppression techniques are appropriate for breast DWI at 3.0 T.
PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to perform a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the performance of two fat suppression techniques on breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-one women underwent clinical breast magnetic resonance imaging, including DWI with short TI inversion recovery (STIR) and spectral attenuated inversion recovery (SPAIR). Four were excluded from the analysis due to image artefacts. Rating of fat suppression uniformity and lesion visibility were performed. Agreement between the two sequences was evaluated. Additionally, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for normal gland, benign and malignant lesions were compared. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was also performed. RESULTS: From the 52 lesions found, 47 were detected by both sequences. DWI-STIR evidenced more homogeneous fat suppression (p = 0.03). Although these lesions were seen with both techniques, DWI-SPAIR evidenced higher score for lesion visibility in nine of them. SNR and CNR were comparable, except for SNR in benign lesions (p < 0.01), which was higher for DWI-SPAIR. Mean ADC values for lesions were similar. ADC for normal fibroglandular tissue was higher when using DWI-STIR (p = 0.006). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the curve values were alike: 84.0 % for both; 77.3, 71.4 %; 80.9, 78.3 %; 82.5, 81.3 % for DWI-SPAIR and DWI-STIR, respectively. CONCLUSION: DWI-STIR showed superior fat suppression homogeneity. No differences were found for SNR and CNR, except for SNR in benign lesions. ADCs for lesions were comparable. Findings in this study are consistent with previous studies at 1.5 T, meaning that both fat suppression techniques are appropriate for breast DWI at 3.0 T.
Authors: Richard Bitar; General Leung; Richard Perng; Sameh Tadros; Alan R Moody; Josee Sarrazin; Caitlin McGregor; Monique Christakis; Sean Symons; Andrew Nelson; Timothy P Roberts Journal: Radiographics Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.333
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: Unni K Udayasankar; Diego Martin; Thomas Lauenstein; Robin Rutherford; John Galloway; Dana Tudorascu; Shanthi V Sitaraman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Minerva Becker; Arthur D Varoquaux; Christophe Combescure; Olivier Rager; Marc Pusztaszeri; Karim Burkhardt; Bénédicte M A Delattre; Pavel Dulguerov; Nicolas Dulguerov; Eirini Katirtzidou; Francesca Caparrotti; Osman Ratib; Habib Zaidi; Christoph D Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2017-08-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Qinwei Zhang; Petra J van Houdt; Doenja M J Lambregts; Baukelien van Triest; Marnix P M Kop; Bram F Coolen; Gustav J Strijkers; Uulke A van der Heide; Aart J Nederveen Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2020-02-07
Authors: Petra Mürtz; Mark Tsesarskiy; Alois M Sprinkart; Wolfgang Block; Oleksandr Savchenko; Julian A Luetkens; Ulrike Attenberger; Claus C Pieper Journal: Eur Radiol Exp Date: 2022-09-29