S Gruber1,2, L Minarikova1,2, K Pinker3, O Zaric1,2, M Chmelik1,2, B Strasser1,2, P Baltzer3, T Helbich3, S Trattnig4,5, W Bogner1,2. 1. MRCE, Department of Biomedical imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, Lazarettgasse 14, 1090, Vienna, Austria. 2. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Clinical Molecular MR Imaging, Vienna, Austria. 3. Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 4. MRCE, Department of Biomedical imaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University Vienna, Lazarettgasse 14, 1090, Vienna, Austria. siegfried.trattnig@meduniwien.ac.at. 5. Christian Doppler Laboratory for Clinical Molecular MR Imaging, Vienna, Austria. siegfried.trattnig@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare bilateral diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) at 3 T and 7 T in the same breast tumour patients. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were included in this IRB-approved study (mean age 56 ± 16 years). Before contrast-enhanced imaging, bilateral DWI with b = 0 and 850 s/mm(2) was performed in 2:56 min (3 T) and 3:48 min (7 T), using readout-segmented echo planar imaging (rs-EPI) with a 1.4 × 1.4 mm(2) (3 T)/0.9 × 0.9 mm(2) (7 T) in-plane resolution. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC), signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight lesions were detected (18 malignant, 10 benign). CNR and SNR were comparable at both field strengths (p > 0.3). Mean ADC values at 7 T were 4-22% lower than at 3 T (p ≤ 0.03). An ADC threshold of 1.275 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s resulted in a diagnostic specificity of 90% at both field strengths. The sensitivity was 94% and 100% at 3 T and 7 T, respectively. CONCLUSION: 7-T DWI of the breast can be performed with 2.4-fold higher spatial resolution than 3 T, without significant differences in SNR if compared to 3 T. KEY POINTS: • 7 T provides a 2.4-fold higher resolution in breast DWI than 3 T • 7 T DWI has a high diagnostic accuracy comparable to that at 3 T • At 7 T malignant lesions had 22 % lower ADC than at 3 T (p < 0.001).
OBJECTIVES: To compare bilateral diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DWI) at 3 T and 7 T in the same breast tumourpatients. METHODS: Twenty-eight patients were included in this IRB-approved study (mean age 56 ± 16 years). Before contrast-enhanced imaging, bilateral DWI with b = 0 and 850 s/mm(2) was performed in 2:56 min (3 T) and 3:48 min (7 T), using readout-segmented echo planar imaging (rs-EPI) with a 1.4 × 1.4 mm(2) (3 T)/0.9 × 0.9 mm(2) (7 T) in-plane resolution. Apparent diffusion coefficients (ADC), signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR) were assessed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight lesions were detected (18 malignant, 10 benign). CNR and SNR were comparable at both field strengths (p > 0.3). Mean ADC values at 7 T were 4-22% lower than at 3 T (p ≤ 0.03). An ADC threshold of 1.275 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s resulted in a diagnostic specificity of 90% at both field strengths. The sensitivity was 94% and 100% at 3 T and 7 T, respectively. CONCLUSION: 7-T DWI of the breast can be performed with 2.4-fold higher spatial resolution than 3 T, without significant differences in SNR if compared to 3 T. KEY POINTS: • 7 T provides a 2.4-fold higher resolution in breast DWI than 3 T • 7 T DWI has a high diagnostic accuracy comparable to that at 3 T • At 7 T malignant lesions had 22 % lower ADC than at 3 T (p < 0.001).
Entities:
Keywords:
7 Tesla; Breast MRI; Breast cancer; DWI; Diffusion
Authors: Carla Boetes; Jeroen Veltman; Lya van Die; Peter Bult; Theo Wobbes; Jelle O Barentsz Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 4.872
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: Wolfgang Bogner; Katja Pinker-Domenig; Hubert Bickel; Marek Chmelik; Michael Weber; Thomas H Helbich; Siegfried Trattnig; Stephan Gruber Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Siegfried Trattnig; Stefan Zbýň; Benjamin Schmitt; Klaus Friedrich; Vladimir Juras; Pavol Szomolanyi; Wolfgang Bogner Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Matthias Benndorf; Pascal A T Baltzer; Tibor Vag; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Acta Radiol Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 1.990
Authors: Robert Frost; Peter Jezzard; Gwenaëlle Douaud; Stuart Clare; David A Porter; Karla L Miller Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2014-07-30 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Hubert Bickel; Katja Pinker; Stephan Polanec; Heinrich Magometschnigg; Georg Wengert; Claudio Spick; Wolfgang Bogner; Zsuzsanna Bago-Horvath; Thomas H Helbich; Pascal Baltzer Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-08-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Ashley M Mendez; Lauren K Fang; Claire H Meriwether; Summer J Batasin; Stéphane Loubrie; Ana E Rodríguez-Soto; Rebecca A Rakow-Penner Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2022-07-08 Impact factor: 5.738