Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

MR breast imaging : a comparative analysis of conventional and parallel imaging acquisition

RM delle mammelle: confronto tra tecnica convenzionale ed imaging parallelo

  • Breast Radiology/Senologia
  • Published:
La radiologia medica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The objective of this study was to compare conventional breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with breast MRI acquired with the sensitivity-encoding (SENSE) technique on a 1.5-T MRI scanner in the same patient, on the basis of image quality and kinetics analysis.

Materials and methods

Thirty-one patients with suspicious mammography and US findings were included in the study. Conventional breast MRI consisted of the following sequences: T1 (matrix, 288×512); T2 (matrix 225×512); short tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrix 320×224) and dynamic T1 [2D fast-field echo (FFE)] (matrix 256×512; temporal resolution =80 s). The SENSE technique included the following sequences: T1 (matrix 512×512); T2 (matrix 512×512); short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrix 320×224); dynamic T1 (3D FFE) (matrix 512×512, with a temporal resolution ≤70 s). Image quality was graded on a four-point scale, and the mean scores given to each sequence were compared between the two protocols. The relative enhancement rates and the qualitative features of the signal intensity (SI)/time curves were also compared between the two protocols.

Results

The readers found 64 contrast-enhanced lesions in 31 patients. Nineteen patients had a total of 27 malignant lesions. In the remaining 12 patients, 37 benign lesions were found. No significant differences between the two protocols were observed with regard to the mean relative enhancement rates and the qualitative features of the SI/time curves. In detail, the mean image quality scores were higher for SENSE imaging (p<0.05). The mean image quality score for the T1 and T2 morphological sequences were comparable. In contrast, the quality scores for the STIR images differed significantly between the two protocols (p<0.001), and a significant difference was also observed when comparing the T1 postcontrast images (p<0.001).

Conclusions

Our data suggest that the SENSE imaging protocol applied in our study is superior to conventional imaging with regard to image quality, especially for T1 postcontrast and STIR images. SENSE imaging protocols may provide an alternative to conventional sequences for contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast using 1.5-T MR scanners.

Riassunto

Obiettivo

Confrontare in termini di qualità di immagine e analisi cinetica l’esame di risonanza magnetica (RM) mammaria convenzionale con l’esame RM acquisito con la tecnica dell’imaging parallelo con scanner RM 1,5 T nello stesso gruppo di pazienti.

Materiali e metodi

Trentuno pazienti con sospetta lesione maligna all’esame mammografico ed ecografico hanno effettuato sia un esame di RM mammaria convenzionale che un esame RM acquisito con tecnica SENSE. L’esame convenzionale era caratterizzato dalle seguenti sequenze: T1 (matrice 288×512); T2 (matrice 225×512), da una short tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrice 320×224) e da una sequenza T1 (2D FFE) dinamica post contrasto (matrice 256×512; risoluzione temporale ≤80 s). L’esame acquisito con il SENSE era costituito da una sequenza T1 (matrice 512×512), T2 (matrice 512×512), STIR (matrice 320×224) e una sequenza dinamica T1 (3D FFE) (matrice 512×512, con una risoluzione temporale ≤70 s). La qualità dell’immagine è stata valutata assegnando a ciascuna sequenza un punteggio da 1 a 4 e i valori medi assegnati a ciascuna sequenza sono stati comparati tra i due protocolli. Sono stati comparati anche i valori medi di intensità relativa del segnale e le caratteristiche qualitative delle curve cinetiche.

Risultati

Sono state documentate 64 lesioni in 31 pazienti. 27 lesioni maligne erano presenti in 19 pazienti. In 12 pazienti sono state evidenziate 37 lesioni benigne. Non è stata dimostrata una differenza statisticamente significativa tra i due protocolli per quanto riguarda l’intensità relativa del segnale e le caratteristiche qualitative delle curve cinetiche. Complessivamente la qualità delle immagini acquisite con la tecnica SENSE è risultata essere superiore rispetto a quelle acquisite con tecnica convenzionale (p<0,05). In particolare, non è stata osservata nessuna differenza statisticamente significativa tra i due protocolli per quanto riguarda le sequenze morfologiche T1 e T2 pesate. Al contrario una differenza statisticamente significativa è stata dimostrata tra i due protocolli per quanto riguarda la qualità delle immagini delle sequenze STIR e di quelle T1 dopo contrasto acquisite con tecnica SENSE, rispetto a quelle acquisite con il protocollo convenzionale (p<0,001).

Conclusioni

I risultati del nostro studio suggeriscono che il protocollo SENSE da noi utilizzato, mostrando una qualità di immagine superiore rispetto al protocollo convenzionale soprattutto per le sequenze STIR e T1 dopo mezzo di contrasto, possa essere considerato una valida alternativa ai protocolli di imaging tradizionale nella RM mammaria effettuata con scanner RM 1,5 T.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References/Bibliografia

  1. Kuhl CK (2000) MRI of breast tumors. Eur Radiol 10:46–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Helbich TH (2000) Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Eur J Radiol 4:208–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Goscin CP, Berman CG, Clark RA (2001) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Cancer Control 8:399–406

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schnall MD, Blume J, Bluemke DA et al (2006) Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 238:42–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Schnall MD, Rosten S, Englander S et al (2001) A combined architectural and kinetic interpretation model for breast MR images. Acad Radiol 8:591–597

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG (2001) Update of breast MR imaging architectural interpretation model. Radiology 219:484–494

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kuhl CK, Schild HH, Morakkabati N (2005) Dynamic bilateral contrastenhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 236:789–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES et al (1997) Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:409–415

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N et al (2006) Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology 239:666–676

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Ikeda T, Monzawa S, Komoto K (2004) Performance assessment of phasedarray coil in breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Med Sci 3:39–43

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Glockner JF, Hu HH, Stanley DW et al (2005) Parallel MR imaging: a user’s guide. Radiographics 25:1279–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Baum F, Fischer U, Vosshenrich R (2002) Classification of hypervascularized lesions in CE MR imaging of the breast. Eur Radiol 12:1087–1092

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS et al (2004) Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 233:830–849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sardanelli F, Lozzelli A, Fausto A (2003) MR imaging of the breast: indications, established technique, and new directions. Eur Radiol 13:28–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH et al (2004) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 292:2735–2742

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Sardanelli F, Giuseppetti GM, Panizza P et al; Italian Trial for Breast MR in Multifocal/Multicentric Cancer (2004) Sensitivity of MRI versus mammography for detecting foci of multifocal, multicentric breast cancer in fatty and dense breasts using the wholebreast pathologic examination as a gold standard. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1149–1157

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kuhl CK, Mielcareck P, Klaschik S et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Tozaki M, Igarashi T, Matsushima S et al (2005) High-spatial-resolution MR imaging of focal breast masses: interpretation model based on kinetic and morphological parameters. Radiat Med 23:43–50

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kuhl CK (2005) Dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging. Breast MRI. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Glockner JF, Hu H, Stanley DW et al (2005) Parallel MR Imaging: a user’s guide. Radiographics 25:1279–1297

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Katscher U, Börnert P (2006) Parallel RF transmission in MRI. NMR Biomed 19:393–400

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. van den Brink JS, Watanabe Y, Kuhl CK et al (2003) Implications of SENSE MR in routine clinical practice. Eur J Radiol 46:3–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Friedman PD, Swaminathan SV, Smith R (2005) SENSE imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:448–451

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Imaging Molecolare, Radiologia Interventistica e Radioterapia, Policlinico Universitario “Tor Vergata”, Viale Oxford 81, 00133, Roma, Italy

    A. Orlacchio, F. Bolacchi, A. Rotili, E. Cossu, I. Tanga, V. Cozzolino & G. Simonetti

Authors
  1. A. Orlacchio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. Bolacchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Rotili
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Cossu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. I. Tanga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. V. Cozzolino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. G. Simonetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Orlacchio.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orlacchio, A., Bolacchi, F., Rotili, A. et al. MR breast imaging : a comparative analysis of conventional and parallel imaging acquisition. radiol med 113, 465–476 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-008-0278-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-008-0278-1

Keywords

Parole chiave

Search

Navigation