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, 288x512); T2 (matrix 225x512); short tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrix 320x224) and dynamic T1 [2D fast-field echo (FFE)] (matrix 256x512; temporal resolution =80 s). The SENSE technique included the following sequences: T1 (matrix 512x512); T2 (matrix 512x512); short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrix 320x224); dynamic T1 (3D FFE) (matrix 512x512, 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. © 2008 Springer-Verlag.

Orlacchio, A., Bolacchi, F., Rotili, A., Cossu, E., Tanga, I., Cozzolino, V., et al. (2008). MR breast imaging: A comparative analysis of conventional and parallel imaging acquisition [RM delle mammelle: Confronto tra tecnica convenzionale ed imaging parallelo]. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 113(4), 465-476 [10.1007/s11547-008-0278-1].

MR breast imaging: A comparative analysis of conventional and parallel imaging acquisition [RM delle mammelle: Confronto tra tecnica convenzionale ed imaging parallelo]

ORLACCHIO, ANTONIO;COSSU, ELSA;SIMONETTI, GIOVANNI MARIA EGISTO
2008-01-01

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, 288x512); T2 (matrix 225x512); short tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrix 320x224) and dynamic T1 [2D fast-field echo (FFE)] (matrix 256x512; temporal resolution =80 s). The SENSE technique included the following sequences: T1 (matrix 512x512); T2 (matrix 512x512); short-tau inversion recovery (STIR) (matrix 320x224); dynamic T1 (3D FFE) (matrix 512x512, 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. © 2008 Springer-Verlag.
2008
Pubblicato
Rilevanza internazionale
Articolo
Sì, ma tipo non specificato
Settore MED/36 - DIAGNOSTICA PER IMMAGINI E RADIOTERAPIA
English
Con Impact Factor ISI
Breast cancer; CE-MRI; Parallel imaging; SENSE
Orlacchio, A., Bolacchi, F., Rotili, A., Cossu, E., Tanga, I., Cozzolino, V., et al. (2008). MR breast imaging: A comparative analysis of conventional and parallel imaging acquisition [RM delle mammelle: Confronto tra tecnica convenzionale ed imaging parallelo]. LA RADIOLOGIA MEDICA, 113(4), 465-476 [10.1007/s11547-008-0278-1].
Orlacchio, A; Bolacchi, F; Rotili, A; Cossu, E; Tanga, I; Cozzolino, V; Simonetti, Gme
Articolo su rivista
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
RadiolMed_2008_RMSense Mammelle.pdf

accesso aperto

Dimensione 903.55 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
903.55 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2108/34100
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 7
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 6
social impact