K Pinker1,2,3, M A Marino1,4, A Dr Meyer-Baese3, T H Helbich5. 1. Division für Molekulare und Gender Bildgebung, Medizinische Universität Wien, Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. 2. Department of Radiology, Molecular Imaging and Therapy Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA. 3. Department of Scientific Computing in Medicine, State University of Florida, Florida, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, Policlinico Universitario G. Martino, University of Messina, Messina, Italy. 5. Division für Molekulare und Gender Bildgebung, Medizinische Universität Wien, Universitätsklinik für Radiologie und Nuklearmedizin, Währinger Gürtel 18-20, 1090, Wien, Österreich. thomas.helbich@meduniwien.ac.at.
Abstract
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is an indispensable tool in breast imaging for many indications. Several functional parameters with MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) have been assessed for imaging of breast tumors and their combined application is defined as multiparametric imaging. Available data suggest that multiparametric imaging using different functional MRI and PET parameters can provide detailed information about the hallmarks of cancer and may provide additional specificity. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Multiparametric and molecular imaging of the breast comprises established MRI parameters, such as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), MR proton spectroscopy ((1)H-MRSI) as well as combinations of radiological and MRI techniques (e. g. PET/CT and PET/MRI) using radiotracers, such as fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Multiparametric and molecular imaging of the breast can be performed at different field-strengths (range 1.5-7 T). Emerging parameters comprise novel promising techniques, such as sodium imaging ((23)Na MRI), phosphorus spectroscopy ((31)P-MRSI), chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) and hyperpolarized MRI as well as various specific radiotracers. ACHIEVEMENTS: Multiparametric and molecular imaging has multiple applications in breast imaging. Multiparametric and molecular imaging of the breast is an evolving field that will enable improved detection, characterization, staging and monitoring for personalized medicine in breast cancer.
CLINICAL/METHODICAL ISSUE: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast is an indispensable tool in breast imaging for many indications. Several functional parameters with MRI and positron emission tomography (PET) have been assessed for imaging of breast tumors and their combined application is defined as multiparametric imaging. Available data suggest that multiparametric imaging using different functional MRI and PET parameters can provide detailed information about the hallmarks of cancer and may provide additional specificity. STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: Multiparametric and molecular imaging of the breast comprises established MRI parameters, such as dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), MR proton spectroscopy ((1)H-MRSI) as well as combinations of radiological and MRI techniques (e. g. PET/CT and PET/MRI) using radiotracers, such as fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Multiparametric and molecular imaging of the breast can be performed at different field-strengths (range 1.5-7 T). Emerging parameters comprise novel promising techniques, such as sodium imaging ((23)Na MRI), phosphorus spectroscopy ((31)P-MRSI), chemical exchange saturation transfer (CEST) imaging, blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) and hyperpolarized MRI as well as various specific radiotracers. ACHIEVEMENTS: Multiparametric and molecular imaging has multiple applications in breast imaging. Multiparametric and molecular imaging of the breast is an evolving field that will enable improved detection, characterization, staging and monitoring for personalized medicine in breast cancer.
Authors: K Pinker-Domenig; W Bogner; S Gruber; H Bickel; S Duffy; M Schernthaner; P Dubsky; U Pluschnig; M Rudas; S Trattnig; T H Helbich Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Heinrich F Magometschnigg; Pascal A Baltzer; Barbara Fueger; Thomas H Helbich; Georgios Karanikas; Peter Dubsky; Margaretha Rudas; Michael Weber; Katja Pinker Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 9.236
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: Kenneth E Pengel; Bas B Koolen; Claudette E Loo; Wouter V Vogel; Jelle Wesseling; Esther H Lips; Emiel J Th Rutgers; Renato A Valdés Olmos; Marie Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters; Sjoerd Rodenhuis; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging Date: 2014-04-29 Impact factor: 9.236
Authors: Daly Avendano; Maria Adele Marino; Doris Leithner; Sunitha Thakur; Blanca Bernard-Davila; Danny F Martinez; Thomas H Helbich; Elizabeth A Morris; Maxine S Jochelson; Pascal A T Baltzer; Paola Clauser; Panagiotis Kapetas; Katja Pinker Journal: Breast Cancer Res Date: 2019-12-04 Impact factor: 6.466