Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat suppression: Are contrast-agent uptake curves affected by magnetic field inhomogeneity?

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the effect of magnetic field heterogeneity in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat saturation (DCE-FS).

Methods

The magnetic field was mapped over the breasts in ten patients. DCE-FS was undertaken at 1.5 T with fast spoiled gradient echoes and spectrally selective fat saturation. Signal intensity was calculated for T1 values 25–1,200 ms both on and off resonance, and results were verified with a test object. Clinical examinations were evaluated for the predicted effects of field heterogeneity.

Results

Magnetic field was found to vary by 3.6 ± 1.2 ppm over the central transaxial slice and 5.1 ± 1.5 over the whole breast volume (mean ± standard deviation). Computer simulations predict a reduction in the dynamic range if field heterogeneity leads to unintended water suppression, and distortion to CA uptake curves due to fat suppression failure (for fat containing pixels). A compromise between dynamic range and fat saturation performance is required. Both water suppression and fat suppression failure are apparent in clinical examinations.

Conclusion

Magnetic field heterogeneity is likely to reduce the sensitivity of DCE-FS by distorting the CA uptake curves because of fat suppression failure (for fat containing pixels) and by reducing the dynamic range because of unintended water suppression.

Key Points

• Magnetic field heterogeneity is significant in breast magnetic resonance.

• Contrast-agent uptake curves are distorted by a non-uniform magnetic field.

• Radiologist must be aware of possibility of distortion to interpret uptake curves correctly.

• Compromise between fat suppression and dynamic range is required.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E (2011) MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet 378:1804–1811

    Google Scholar 

  2. DeMartini W, Lehman C, Partridge S (2008) Breast MRI for cancer detection and characterization: a review of evidence-based clinical applications. Acad Radiol 15:408–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Goethem M, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Hufkens G, Parizel PM (2009) Role of MRI of the breast in the evaluation of the symptomatic patient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21:74–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuhl C, Kuhn W, Braun M, Schild H (2007) Pre-operative staging of breast cancer with breast MRI: one step forward, two steps back? Breast 16:S34–S44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A, Chiva M, Abraira V, Emparanza JI, Bonfill X, Zamora J (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 22:26–38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. US Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151:716–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75–89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7:18–27

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Familial Breast Cancer. The Classification and Care of Women at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Care (Partial Update of NICE Clinical Guideline 14). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006 (NICE Clinical Guideline 41). Available http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10994/30244/30244.pdf. Accessed 20/02/2012

  10. Dall BJG, Gilbert F, Leach M, Wilson R (2009) Technical Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Surveillance of Women at Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, (NHSBSP Publication No 68). Available https://www.nbss.nhs.uk/documents/1194%20MRI%20surveillance%20ed%20v6%203%2023%2012%2009.pdf Accessed 20/02/2012

  11. American College of Radiology (2003) BI-RADS: MRI. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: BI-RADS Atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, Reston

  12. Leach MO et al (2005) MARIBS study group. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769–1778

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’agnolo G et al (2007) Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): interim results. Radiology 242:689–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1317–1325

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L et al (2007) Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 16:367–374

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lehman CD, BLume JD, Weatherall P et al (2005) Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103:1898–1905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Le-Petross HT, Whitman GJ, Atchley DP, Yuan Y, Gutierrez-Barrera A, Hortobagyi GN, Litton JK, Arun BK (2011) Effectiveness of alternating mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for screening women with deleterious BRCA mutations at high risk of breast cancer. Cancer 117:3900–3907

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Warner E, Causer PA, Wong JW, Wright FC, Jong RA, Hill KA, Messner SJ, Yaffe MJ, Narod SA, Plewes DB (2011) Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study. Breast J 17(1):9–17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Price J, Chen SW (2009) Screening for breast cancer with MRI: recent experience from the Australian Capital Territory. J Med Imaging Rad Oncol 53:69–80

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Jansen SA, Shimauchi A, Zak L et al (2009) Kinetic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition. Am J Roentgenol 1993:832–839

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Maril N, Collins CM, Greenman RL, Lenkinski RE (2005) Strategies for shimming the breast. Magn Reson Med 54:1139–1145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Haase A (1990) Snapshot FLASH MRI, applications to T1, T2 and chemical-shift imaging. Magn Reson Med 13:77–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mugler JP, Brookerman JR (1991) Rapid three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging with the MP-RAGE sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 1:561–567

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Di Giovanni P, Azlan CA, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW (2010) The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T. Phys Med Biol 55:121–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Rakow-Penner R, Daniel B, Yu H, Sawer-Glover A, Glover GH (2006) Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5 T and 3 T measured using IDEAL. J Mang Reson Imaging 23:87–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. De Naeyer D, Verhulst J, CeelenW SP, De Deene Y, Verdonck P (2011) Flip angle optimization fro dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-studies with spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 56:5373–5395

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Schabel MC, Parker DL (2008) Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient-echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 53:2345–2373

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This article presents independent research partially funded by the CR-UK and EPSRC Cancer Imaging Centre (C1060/A10334) and carried out at the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Royal Marsden Clinical Research Facility in association with the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer Research, MRI Unit, Downs Rd, Sutton, SM2 5 PT, UK

    Maria A. Schmidt, M. Borri, E. Scurr, G. Ertas, G. Payne, E. O’Flynn, N. deSouza & M. O. Leach

Authors
  1. Maria A. Schmidt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Borri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. Scurr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G. Ertas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Payne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. E. O’Flynn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. N. deSouza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. M. O. Leach
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria A. Schmidt.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schmidt, M.A., Borri, M., Scurr, E. et al. Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat suppression: Are contrast-agent uptake curves affected by magnetic field inhomogeneity?. Eur Radiol 23, 1537–1545 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2735-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-012-2735-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation