Ananya Panda1, Yong Chen2,3, Kathleen Ropella-Panagis4, Satyam Ghodasara5, Marcie Stopchinski6, Nicole Seyfried5, Katherine Wright4, Nicole Seiberlich4,6,7, Mark Griswold4,6,7, Vikas Gulani4,6,7. 1. Department of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 3. Biomedical Research Imaging Center (BRIC), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA. 4. Department of Radiology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 5. School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 7. Department of Biomedical Engineering, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 3D breast magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) technique enables T1 and T2 mapping in breast tissues. Combined repeatability and reproducibility studies on breast T1 and T2 relaxometry are lacking. PURPOSE: To assess test-retest and two-visit repeatability and interscanner reproducibility of the 3D breast MRF technique in a single-institution setting. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Eighteen women (median age 29 years, range, 22-33 years) underwent Visit 1 scans on scanner 1. Ten of these women underwent test-retest scan repositioning after a 10-minute interval. Thirteen women had Visit 2 scans within 7-15 days in same menstrual cycle. The remaining five women had Visit 2 scans in the same menstrual phase in next menstrual cycle. Five women were also scanned on scanner 2 at both visits for interscanner reproducibility. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Two 3T MR scanners with the 3D breast MRF technique. ASSESSMENT: T1 and T2 MRF maps of both breasts. STATISTICAL TESTS: Mean T1 and T2 values for normal fibroglandular tissues were quantified at all scans. For variability, between and within-subjects coefficients of variation (bCV and wCV, respectively) were assessed. Repeatability was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis and coefficient of repeatability (CR). Reproducibility was assessed with interscanner coefficient of variation (CoV) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The bCV at test-retest scans was 9-12% for T1 , 7-17% for T2 , wCV was <4% for T1 , and <7% for T2 . For two visits in same menstrual cycle, bCV was 10-15% for T1 , 13-17% for T2 , wCV was <7% for T1 and <5% for T2 . For two visits in the same menstrual phase, bCV was 6-14% for T1 , 15-18% for T2 , wCV was <7% for T1 , and <9% for T2 . For test-retest scans, CR for T1 and T2 were 130 msec and 11 msec. For two visit scans, CR was <290 msec for T1 and 10-14 msec for T2 . Interscanner CoV was 3.3-3.6% for T1 and 5.1-6.6% for T2 , with no differences between interscanner measurements (P = 1.00 for T1 , P = 0.344 for T2 ). DATA CONCLUSION: 3D breast MRF measurements are repeatable across scan timings and scanners and may be useful in clinical applications in breast imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1133-1143.
BACKGROUND: The 3D breast magnetic resonance fingerprinting (MRF) technique enables T1 and T2 mapping in breast tissues. Combined repeatability and reproducibility studies on breast T1 and T2 relaxometry are lacking. PURPOSE: To assess test-retest and two-visit repeatability and interscanner reproducibility of the 3D breast MRF technique in a single-institution setting. STUDY TYPE: Prospective. SUBJECTS: Eighteen women (median age 29 years, range, 22-33 years) underwent Visit 1 scans on scanner 1. Ten of these women underwent test-retest scan repositioning after a 10-minute interval. Thirteen women had Visit 2 scans within 7-15 days in same menstrual cycle. The remaining five women had Visit 2 scans in the same menstrual phase in next menstrual cycle. Five women were also scanned on scanner 2 at both visits for interscanner reproducibility. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: Two 3T MR scanners with the 3D breast MRF technique. ASSESSMENT: T1 and T2 MRF maps of both breasts. STATISTICAL TESTS: Mean T1 and T2 values for normal fibroglandular tissues were quantified at all scans. For variability, between and within-subjects coefficients of variation (bCV and wCV, respectively) were assessed. Repeatability was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis and coefficient of repeatability (CR). Reproducibility was assessed with interscanner coefficient of variation (CoV) and Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: The bCV at test-retest scans was 9-12% for T1 , 7-17% for T2 , wCV was <4% for T1 , and <7% for T2 . For two visits in same menstrual cycle, bCV was 10-15% for T1 , 13-17% for T2 , wCV was <7% for T1 and <5% for T2 . For two visits in the same menstrual phase, bCV was 6-14% for T1 , 15-18% for T2 , wCV was <7% for T1 , and <9% for T2 . For test-retest scans, CR for T1 and T2 were 130 msec and 11 msec. For two visit scans, CR was <290 msec for T1 and 10-14 msec for T2 . Interscanner CoV was 3.3-3.6% for T1 and 5.1-6.6% for T2 , with no differences between interscanner measurements (P = 1.00 for T1 , P = 0.344 for T2 ). DATA CONCLUSION: 3D breast MRF measurements are repeatable across scan timings and scanners and may be useful in clinical applications in breast imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 Technical Efficacy: Stage 2 J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2019;50:1133-1143.
Authors: P Clara Tan; Martin D Pickles; Martin Lowry; David J Manton; Lindsay W Turnbull Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: Sheye O Aliu; Ella F Jones; Ania Azziz; John Kornak; Lisa J Wilmes; David C Newitt; Sachiko A Suzuki; Catherine Klifa; Jessica Gibbs; Evelyn C Proctor; Bonnie N Joe; Nola M Hylton Journal: Transl Oncol Date: 2014-02-01 Impact factor: 4.243
Authors: Jean-Paul Delille; Priscilla J Slanetz; Eren D Yeh; Daniel B Kopans; Leoncio Garrido Journal: Breast J Date: 2005 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.431
Authors: D J Manton; A Chaturvedi; A Hubbard; M J Lind; M Lowry; A Maraveyas; M D Pickles; D J Tozer; L W Turnbull Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2006-02-13 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Debra F McGivney; Rasim Boyacıoğlu; Yun Jiang; Megan E Poorman; Nicole Seiberlich; Vikas Gulani; Kathryn E Keenan; Mark A Griswold; Dan Ma Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Mandi Wang; Jose A U Perucho; Peng Cao; Varut Vardhanabhuti; Di Cui; Yiang Wang; Pek-Lan Khong; Edward S Hui; Elaine Y P Lee Journal: Quant Imaging Med Surg Date: 2021-09
Authors: Thomaz R Mostardeiro; Ananya Panda; Robert J Witte; Norbert G Campeau; Kiaran P McGee; Yi Sui; Aiming Lu Journal: MAGMA Date: 2021-05-04 Impact factor: 2.310
Authors: Bjoern H Menze; Marion I Menzel; Juan A Hernandez-Tamames; Carolin M Pirkl; Laura Nunez-Gonzalez; Florian Kofler; Sebastian Endt; Lioba Grundl; Mohammad Golbabaee; Pedro A Gómez; Matteo Cencini; Guido Buonincontri; Rolf F Schulte; Marion Smits; Benedikt Wiestler Journal: Neuroradiology Date: 2021-04-09 Impact factor: 2.804