PURPOSE: To compare a novel multicoil compressed sensing technique with flexible temporal resolution, golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP), to conventional fat-suppressed spoiled three-dimensional (3D) gradient-echo (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination, VIBE) MRI in evaluating the conspicuity of benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March and August 2015, 121 women (24-84 years; mean, 49.7 years) with 180 biopsy-proven benign and malignant lesions were imaged consecutively at 3.0 Tesla in a dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI exam using sagittal T1-weighted fat-suppressed 3D VIBE in this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective study. Subjects underwent MRI-guided breast biopsy (mean, 13 days [1-95 days]) using GRASP DCE-MRI, a fat-suppressed radial "stack-of-stars" 3D FLASH sequence with golden-angle ordering. Three readers independently evaluated breast lesions on both sequences. Statistical analysis included mixed models with generalized estimating equations, kappa-weighted coefficients and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: All lesions demonstrated good conspicuity on VIBE and GRASP sequences (4.28 ± 0.81 versus 3.65 ± 1.22), with no significant difference in lesion detection (P = 0.248). VIBE had slightly higher lesion conspicuity than GRASP for all lesions, with VIBE 12.6% (0.63/5.0) more conspicuous (P < 0.001). Masses and nonmass enhancement (NME) were more conspicuous on VIBE (P < 0.001), with a larger difference for NME (14.2% versus 9.4% more conspicuous). Malignant lesions were more conspicuous than benign lesions (P < 0.001) on both sequences. CONCLUSION: GRASP DCE-MRI, a multicoil compressed sensing technique with high spatial resolution and flexible temporal resolution, has near-comparable performance to conventional VIBE imaging for breast lesion evaluation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1746-1752.
PURPOSE: To compare a novel multicoil compressed sensing technique with flexible temporal resolution, golden-angle radial sparse parallel (GRASP), to conventional fat-suppressed spoiled three-dimensional (3D) gradient-echo (volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination, VIBE) MRI in evaluating the conspicuity of benign and malignant breast lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between March and August 2015, 121 women (24-84 years; mean, 49.7 years) with 180 biopsy-proven benign and malignant lesions were imaged consecutively at 3.0 Tesla in a dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI exam using sagittal T1-weighted fat-suppressed 3D VIBE in this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act-compliant, retrospective study. Subjects underwent MRI-guided breast biopsy (mean, 13 days [1-95 days]) using GRASP DCE-MRI, a fat-suppressed radial "stack-of-stars" 3D FLASH sequence with golden-angle ordering. Three readers independently evaluated breast lesions on both sequences. Statistical analysis included mixed models with generalized estimating equations, kappa-weighted coefficients and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: All lesions demonstrated good conspicuity on VIBE and GRASP sequences (4.28 ± 0.81 versus 3.65 ± 1.22), with no significant difference in lesion detection (P = 0.248). VIBE had slightly higher lesion conspicuity than GRASP for all lesions, with VIBE 12.6% (0.63/5.0) more conspicuous (P < 0.001). Masses and nonmass enhancement (NME) were more conspicuous on VIBE (P < 0.001), with a larger difference for NME (14.2% versus 9.4% more conspicuous). Malignant lesions were more conspicuous than benign lesions (P < 0.001) on both sequences. CONCLUSION: GRASP DCE-MRI, a multicoil compressed sensing technique with high spatial resolution and flexible temporal resolution, has near-comparable performance to conventional VIBE imaging for breast lesion evaluation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 Technical Efficacy: Stage 3 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2017;45:1746-1752.
Authors: Luminita A Tudorica; Karen Y Oh; Nicole Roy; Mark D Kettler; Yiyi Chen; Stephanie L Hemmingson; Aneela Afzal; John W Grinstead; Gerhard Laub; Xin Li; Wei Huang Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2012-07-06 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Xin Wu; Eytan Raz; Tobias K Block; Christian Geppert; Mari Hagiwara; Mary T Bruno; Girish M Fatterpekar Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Matthias C Schabel; Glen R Morrell; Karen Y Oh; Cheryl A Walczak; R Brad Barlow; Leigh A Neumayer Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Li Feng; Robert Grimm; Kai Tobias Block; Hersh Chandarana; Sungheon Kim; Jian Xu; Leon Axel; Daniel K Sodickson; Ricardo Otazo Journal: Magn Reson Med Date: 2013-10-18 Impact factor: 4.668
Authors: Ritse M Mann; Roel D Mus; Jan van Zelst; Christian Geppert; Nico Karssemeijer; Bram Platel Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Laura Heacock; Alana A Lewin; Yiming Gao; James S Babb; Samantha L Heller; Amy N Melsaether; Neeti Bagadiya; Sungheon G Kim; Linda Moy Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Natsuko Onishi; Meredith Sadinski; Peter Gibbs; Katherine M Gallagher; Mary C Hughes; Eun Sook Ko; Brittany Z Dashevsky; Dattesh D Shanbhag; Maggie M Fung; Theodore M Hunt; Danny F Martinez; Amita Shukla-Dave; Elizabeth A Morris; Elizabeth J Sutton Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2019-08-29 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: T Demerath; K Blackham; C Anastasopoulos; K T Block; B Stieltjes; T Schubert Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 2.546