PURPOSE: To characterize errors in enhancement in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI studies as a function of echo time and determine the source of dark band artifacts in clinical subtraction images. METHODS: Computer simulations, oil and water substitute (methylene chloride), as well as an American College of Radiology quality control phantom were tested. Routine clinical DCE breast MRI study was bracketed with (accelerated) in-phase DCE acquisitions in five patients. RESULTS: Simulation results demonstrated up to -160% suppression of the expected enhancement caused by differential enhancement of fat and water. Two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo and fat-suppressed 3D GRE phantom imaging confirmed the simulation results and showed that fat suppression does not eliminate the artifact. In vivo in-phase DCE images showed increased enhancement consistent with predictions and also confirmed increased spatial blurring on in-phase 3D gradient-recalled echo images. Combined multi-dimensional partial Fourier and parallel imaging provided a time-equivalent in-phase DCE MRI acquisition. CONCLUSION: Errors in expected enhancement occur in DCE breast MRI subtraction images because of differential enhancement of fat and water and incomplete fat signal suppression. These errors can lead to artificial suppression of enhancement as well as dark band artifacts on subtraction images. These artifacts can be eliminated with a time-equivalent in-phase fat-suppressed 3D gradient-recalled echo sequence. Understanding chemical shift artifact of the third kind, a unique artifact of artificial enhancement suppression in the presence of intravoxel fat and water signal, will aid DCE breast MRI image interpretation. In-phase acquisitions (combined with simultaneous minimum echo time or opposed-phase echoes) may facilitate qualitative, quantitative and longitudinal analysis of contrast enhancement. Magn Reson Med 79:2277-2289, 2018.
PURPOSE: To characterize errors in enhancement in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI studies as a function of echo time and determine the source of dark band artifacts in clinical subtraction images. METHODS: Computer simulations, oil and water substitute (methylene chloride), as well as an American College of Radiology quality control phantom were tested. Routine clinical DCE breast MRI study was bracketed with (accelerated) in-phase DCE acquisitions in five patients. RESULTS: Simulation results demonstrated up to -160% suppression of the expected enhancement caused by differential enhancement of fat and water. Two-dimensional gradient-recalled echo and fat-suppressed 3D GRE phantom imaging confirmed the simulation results and showed that fat suppression does not eliminate the artifact. In vivo in-phase DCE images showed increased enhancement consistent with predictions and also confirmed increased spatial blurring on in-phase 3D gradient-recalled echo images. Combined multi-dimensional partial Fourier and parallel imaging provided a time-equivalent in-phase DCE MRI acquisition. CONCLUSION: Errors in expected enhancement occur in DCE breast MRI subtraction images because of differential enhancement of fat and water and incomplete fat signal suppression. These errors can lead to artificial suppression of enhancement as well as dark band artifacts on subtraction images. These artifacts can be eliminated with a time-equivalent in-phase fat-suppressed 3D gradient-recalled echo sequence. Understanding chemical shift artifact of the third kind, a unique artifact of artificial enhancement suppression in the presence of intravoxel fat and water signal, will aid DCE breast MRI image interpretation. In-phase acquisitions (combined with simultaneous minimum echo time or opposed-phase echoes) may facilitate qualitative, quantitative and longitudinal analysis of contrast enhancement. Magn Reson Med 79:2277-2289, 2018.
Authors: Alexander M Th Schmitz; Claudette E Loo; Jelle Wesseling; Ruud M Pijnappel; Kenneth G A Gilhuijs Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-11-07 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: N M Rofsky; V S Lee; G Laub; M A Pollack; G A Krinsky; D Thomasson; M M Ambrosino; J C Weinreb Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: V Girardi; G Carbognin; L Camera; M Tonegutti; F Bonetti; E Manfrin; R Pozzi Mucelli Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2009-09-22 Impact factor: 3.469
Authors: Diane M Renz; Pascal A T Baltzer; Joachim Böttcher; Fady Thaher; Mieczyslaw Gajda; Oumar Camara; Ingo B Runnebaum; Werner A Kaiser Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Ji Youn Kim; Sung Hun Kim; Yun Ju Kim; Bong Joo Kang; Yeong Yi An; A Won Lee; Byung Joo Song; Yong Soo Park; Han Bi Lee Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2014-08-29 Impact factor: 2.546