Optimizing 1.5-Tesla and 3-Tesla Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breasts

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 207-224

  Chatterji, Manjil ^a   Mercado, Cecilia L ^a   Moy, Linda ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

3Tesla MR imaging; Breast; Breast cancer; Dynamic contrast enhancement; MR imaging

Indexed keywords

ARTIFACT REDUCTION; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; HUMAN; IMAGE QUALITY; INTRADUCTAL CARCINOMA; MAGNETIC FIELD; MAMMOGRAPHY; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PATIENT SAFETY; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; RADIATION ABSORPTION; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SIGNAL NOISE RATIO;

ARTIFACTS; BREAST; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING;

EID: 77952968358     PISSN: 10649689     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2010.02.011     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. Davis P.L., McCarty K.S. Sensitivity of enhanced MRI for detection of breast cancer: new, multicentric, residual, and recurrent. Eur Radiol 1997, 7(Suppl 5):289-298.
2. Orel S.G., Schnall M.D. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology 2001, 220:13-30.
3. Heywang-Kobrunner S.H., Viehweg P., Heinig A., et al. Contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: accuracy, value, controversies, solutions. Eur J Radiol 1997, 24:94-108.
4. Saslow D., Boetes C., Burke W., et al. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 2007, 57(2):75-89.
5. Lehman C.D., Gatsonis C., Kuhl C.K., et al. MRI evaluation of the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2007, 356(13):1295-1303.
6. Bassett L.W., Dhaliwal S.G., Eradat J., et al. National trends and practices in breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191(2):332-339.
7. American College of Radiology ACR breast imaging reporting and data system (BIRADS): breast imaging Atlas 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston (VA). 4th edition.
8. Ikeda D., Hylton M., Kuhl C., et al. Breast imaging reporting and data system, BI-RADS: magnetic resonance imaging (BI-RADS: MRI) 2003, American College of Radiology, Reston (VA).
9. American College of Radiology Available at:, Accessed January 30, 2010. http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/guidelines/breast/mri_breast.aspx.
10. Mann R.M., Kuhl C.K., Kinkel K., et al. Breast MRI: guidelines from the European Society of Breast Imaging. Eur Radiol 2008, 18(7):1307-1318.
11. Rausch D., Hendrick R.E. How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on Your 1.5T system. Radiographics 2006, 26:1469-1484.
12. Hendrick R.E. Breast MRI: fundamentals and technical aspects 2007, Springer, New York (NY), ISBN: 978-0-387-73506-1.
13. Harvey J.A., Hendrick R.E., Coll J.M., et al. Breast MR imaging artifacts: how to recognize and fix them. Radiographics 2007, 27(Suppl 1):S131-S145.
14. Ojeda-Fournier H., Choe K.A., Mahoney M.C. Recognizing and interpreting artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the breast. Radiographics 2007, 27(Suppl 1):S147-S164.
15. Hood M.N., Ho V.B., Smirniotopoulos J.G., et al. Chemical shift: the artifact and clinical tool revisited. Radiographics 1999, 19(2):357-371.
16. Kuhl C.K. Concepts for differential diagnosis in breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006, 14(3):305-337.
17. Papetti M., Herman I.M. Mechanisms of normal and tumor derived angiogenesis. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 2002, 282:947-970.
18. Kuhl C.K., Mielcareck P., Klaschik S., et al. Dynamic breast MR imaging; a signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions?. Radiology 1999, 211:101-110.
19. Schnall M.D., Blume J., Bluemke D.A., et al. Diagnostic architectural and dynamic features at breast MR imaging: multicenter study. Radiology 2006, 238:42-53.
20. Liu P.F., Debatin J.F., Caduff R.F., et al. Improved diagnostic accuracy in dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the breast by combined quantitative analysis. Br J Radiol 1998, 71(845):501-509.
21. Kuhl C.K., Schild H.H., Morakkabati N. Dynamic bilateral contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Radiology 2005, 236(3):789-800.
22. Dietrich O., Nikolaou K., Wintersperger B.J., et al. iPAT: application for fast and cardiovascular MR imaging. Electromedica 2002, 70:133-145.
23. DeLano M.C., Fisher C. 3T MR imaging of the brain. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006, 14(1):77-88.
24. Bolbos R.I., Zuo J., Banerjee S., et al. Relationship between trabecular bone structure and articular cartilage morphology and relaxation times in early OA of the knee joint using parallel MRI at 3 T. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2008, 16(10):1150-1159.
25. Kaufmann T.J., Huston J., Cloft H.J., et al. A prospective trial of 3T and 1.5T time-of-flight and contrast-enhanced MR angiography in the follow-up of coiled intracranial aneurysms. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol 2009, [Epub ahead of print].
26. Hecht E.M., Lee R.F., Taouli B., et al. Perspectives on body MR imaging at ultrahigh field. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007, 15(3):449-465. viii.
27. Kuhl C.K. Breast MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2007, 15(3):315-320. vi.
28. Erturk S.M., Alberich-Bayarri A., Herrmann K.A., et al. Use of 3.0-T MR imaging for evaluation of the abdomen. Radiographics 2009, 29(6):1547-1563.
29. Kuhl C.K., Jost P., Morakkabati N., et al. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology 2006, 239(3):666-676.
30. Kuhl C.K., Kooijman H., Gieseke J., et al. Effect of B1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2007, 244(3):929-930.
31. Mountford C.E., Stanwell P., Ramadan S. Breast MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 2008, 248(1):319-320.
32. Pinker K., Grabner G., Bogner W., et al. A combined high temporal and high spatial resolution 3 Tesla MR imaging protocol for the assessment of breast lesions: initial results. Invest Radiol 2009, 44(9):553-558.
33. Elsamaloty H., Elzawawi M.S., Mohammad S., et al. Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192(4):1142-1148.
34. Merkle E.M., Dale B.M., Paulson E.K. Abdominal MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2006, 14(1):17-26.
35. Zhu Y. Parallel excitation with an array of transmit coils. Magn Reson Med 2004, 51(4):775-784.
36. Zhang C., Yip C.Y., Grissom W., et al. Reduction of transmitter B1 inhomogeneity with transmit SENSE slice-select pulses. Magn Reson Med 2007, 57(5):842-847.
37. Katscher U., Bornert P., Leussler C., et al. Transmit SENSE. Magn Reson Med 2003, 49(1):144-150.
38. Partridge S.C. Future applications and innovations of clinical breast magnetic resonance imaging. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2008, 19(3):171-176.
39. Gutierrez R.L., DeMartini W.B., Eby P.R., et al. BI-RADS lesion characteristics predict likelihood of malignancy in breast MRI for masses but not for nonmasslike enhancement. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193:994-1000.
40. Raza S., Vallejo M., Chikarmane S.A., et al. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a range of MRI features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191(3):689-699.
41. Kuhl C.K., Schrading S., Bieling H., et al. MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in-situ; a prospective observational study. Lancet 2007, 370:485-492.
42. Jansen S.A., Newstead G.M., Abe H., et al. Pure ductal carcinoma in situ: kinetic and morphologic MR characteristics compared with mammographic appearance and nuclear grade. Radiology 2007, 245:684-691.
43. Buadu L.D., Murakami J., Murayama A., et al. Breast lesions: correlation of contrast medium enhancement patterns on MR images histopathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. Radiology 1996, 200:639-649.
44. Boetes C., Barentsz J.O., Mus R.D., et al. MR characterization of suspicious breast lesions with a gadolinium-enhanced TurboFLASH subtraction technique. Radiology 1994, 193:777-781.
45. Veltman J., Stoutjesdijk M., Mann R., et al. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: the value of pharmacokinetic parameters derived from fast dynamic imaging during initial enhancement in classifying lesions. Eur Radiol 2008, 18(6):1123-1133.
46. Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff: criteria for significant risk investigation of MR diagnostic devices Available at:, Accessed July 14, 2003. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/793.html.
47. Shellock F.G. Reference manual for magnetic resonance safety, implants and devices 2009, Biomedical Research Publishing Company, Los Angeles (CA). 1st edition.
48. Yeung D.K., Cheung H.S., Tse G.M. Human breast lesions: characterization with contrast enhanced in vivo proton MR spectroscopy-initial results. Radiology 2001, 220:40-46.
49. Bartella L., Morris E.A., Dershaw D.D., et al. Proton MR spectroscopy with choline peak as malignancy marker improves positive predictive value for breast cancer diagnosis: preliminary study. Radiology 2006, 239(3):686-692.
50. Bartella L., Thakur S.B., Morris E.A., et al. Enhancing nonmass lesions in the breast: evaluation with proton (1H) MR spectroscopy. Radiology 2007, 245:80-87.
51. Moy L, Do R, Salibi N, et al. Can better breast MRS be obtained at the 3T vs. 1.5T? Presented at the 92nd Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America, RSNA. Chicago, IL, December 1, 2006.
52. Tsushima Y., Takahashi-Taketomi A., Endo K. Magnetic resonance (MR) differential diagnosis of breast tumors using apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) on 1.5 T. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009, 30(2):249-255.
53. Lo G.G., Ai V., Chan J.K., et al. Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions: first experience at 3T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009, 33(1):63-69.
54. Bogner W., Gruber S., Pinker K., et al. Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis?. Radiology 2009, 253(2):341-351.