Contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging of claustrophobic or oversized patients using an open low-field magnet

Calabrese, Massimo; Brizzi, Davide; Carbonaro, Luca A.; Chiaramondia, M; Kirchin, Miles A.; Sardanelli, Francesco

doi:10.1007/s11547-008-0358-2

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Michel et al found poor image quality in MR pelvimetry with a low-field open MR scanner [11]. Calabrese et al concluded that open low-field contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast yielded good diagnostic performance in claustrophobic or oversized patients [31]. Mehdizade et al found that diffusion-weighted MR imaging performed with a low-field open MR scanner was reliable for the evaluation of acute stroke [32].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-Field Open versus Short-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine: A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Image Quality

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of the present study was to compare the image quality of spinal magnetic resonance (MR) imaging performed on a high-field horizontal open versus a short-bore MR scanner in a randomized controlled study setup.MethodsAltogether, 93 (80% women, mean age 53) consecutive patients underwent spine imaging after random assignement to a 1-T horizontal open MR scanner with a vertical magnetic field or a 1.5-T short-bore MR scanner. This patient subset was part of a larger cohort. Image quality was assessed by determining qualitative parameters, signal-to-noise (SNR) and contrast-to-noise ratios (CNR), and quantitative contour sharpness.ResultsThe image quality parameters were higher for short-bore MR imaging. Regarding all sequences, the relative differences were 39% for the mean overall qualitative image quality, 53% for the mean SNR values, and 34–37% for the quantitative contour sharpness (P<0.0001). The CNR values were also higher for images obtained with the short-bore MR scanner. No sequence was of very poor (nondiagnostic) image quality. Scanning times were significantly longer for examinations performed on the open MR scanner (mean: 32±22 min versus 20±9 min; P<0.0001).ConclusionsIn this randomized controlled comparison of spinal MR imaging with an open versus a short-bore scanner, short-bore MR imaging revealed considerably higher image quality with shorter scanning times.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00715806

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High-Field Open versus Short-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine: A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Image Quality

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In one recent report ( 22 ), 18 (4.5%) of 397 consecutive patients referred for breast MR imaging were unable to undergo the examination owing to claustrophobia ( n = 15) or body habitus ( n = 3). These women underwent open-bore MR imaging at 0.2 T, and 86% sensitivity was observed ( 22 ). Motion-induced artifacts that result in a nondiagnostic breast MR imaging examination are more common among claustrophobic patients.…”

Section: Breast Imaging: Elevated Breast Cancer Risk and Refusal For mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer Refuse Breast MR Imaging Screening: ACRIN 6666

Berg¹,

Blume²,

Adams³

et al. 2010

Radiology

178

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To determine reasons for nonparticipation in a trial of supplemental screening with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging after mammography and ultrasonography (US). Materials and Methods:Women ( n = 2809) at elevated risk of breast cancer were enrolled in the American College of Radiology Imaging Network 6666 US Screening Protocol at 21 institutions. Fourteen institutions met technical and experience requirements for this institutional review board-approved, HIPAA-compliant substudy of supplemental screening with MR imaging. Those women who had completed 0-, 12-, and 24-month screenings with mammography combined with US were considered for a single contrast materialenhanced MR examination within 8 weeks after completing the 24-month mammography-US screening. A total of 1593 women had complete MR substudy registration data: 378 of them were ineligible for the study, and 1215 had analyzable data. Reasons for nonparticipation were determined. Demographic data were compared between study participants and nonparticipants. Results:Of 1215 women with analyzable data, 703 (57.9%), with a mean age of 54.8 years, were enrolled in the MR substudy and 512 (42.1%) declined participation. Women with a 25% or greater lifetime risk of breast cancer were more likely to participate (odds ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval: 1.10, 2.12). Of 512 nonparticipants, 130 (25.4%) refused owing to claustrophobia; 93 (18.2%), owing to time constraints; 62 (12.1%), owing to fi nancial concerns; 47 (9.2%), because their physician would not provide a referral and/or did not believe MR imaging was indicated; 40 (7.8%), because they were not interested; 39 (7.6%), because they were medically intolerant to MR imaging; 29 (5.7%), because they did not want to undergo intravenous injection; 27 (5.3%), owing to additional biopsy or other procedures that might be required subsequently; 21 (4.1%), owing to MR imaging scheduling constraints; 11 (2.2%), because of the travel required; seven (1.4%), owing to gadolinium-related risks or allergies; and six (1.2%), for unknown reasons. Conclusion:Of 1215 women with elevated breast cancer risk who could, according to protocol guidelines, undergo breast MR imaging, only 57.9% agreed to participate.q RSNA, 2010

show abstract

“…DCE-MRI provides information on morphology and vascularization of the tumor [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. BOLD MRI gives information on blood hemoglobin oxygenation including the contribution of blood volume, hematocrit, flow, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, as well as pH, 2,3 DPG [ 20 , 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI, and Diffusion Weighted MRI for Benign and Malignant Breast Cancer Discrimination: A Preliminary Experience

Fusco

Granata

Raso

et al. 2021

Cancers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose. To combine blood oxygenation level dependent magnetic resonance imaging (BOLD-MRI), dynamic contrast enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI), and diffusion weighted MRI (DW-MRI) in differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods. Thirty-seven breast lesions (11 benign and 21 malignant lesions) pathologically proven were included in this retrospective preliminary study. Pharmaco-kinetic parameters including Ktrans, kep, ve, and vp were extracted by DCE-MRI; BOLD parameters were estimated by basal signal S0 and the relaxation rate R2*; and diffusion and perfusion parameters were derived by DW-MRI (pseudo-diffusion coefficient (Dp), perfusion fraction (fp), and tissue diffusivity (Dt)). The correlation coefficient, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney U-test, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis were calculated and area under the ROC curve (AUC) was obtained. Moreover, pattern recognition approaches (linear discrimination analysis and decision tree) with balancing technique and leave one out cross validation approach were considered. Results. R2* and D had a significant negative correlation (−0.57). The mean value, standard deviation, Skewness and Kurtosis values of R2* did not show a statistical significance between benign and malignant lesions (p > 0.05) confirmed by the ‘poor’ diagnostic value of ROC analysis. For DW-MRI derived parameters, the univariate analysis, standard deviation of D, Skewness and Kurtosis values of D* had a significant result to discriminate benign and malignant lesions and the best result at the univariate analysis in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions was obtained by the Skewness of D* with an AUC of 82.9% (p-value = 0.02). Significant results for the mean value of Ktrans, mean value, standard deviation value and Skewness of kep, mean value, Skewness and Kurtosis of ve were obtained and the best AUC among DCE-MRI extracted parameters was reached by the mean value of kep and was equal to 80.0%. The best diagnostic performance in the discrimination of benign and malignant lesions was obtained at the multivariate analysis considering the DCE-MRI parameters alone with an AUC = 0.91 when the balancing technique was considered. Conclusions. Our results suggest that the combined use of DCE-MRI, DW-MRI and/or BOLD-MRI does not provide a dramatic improvement compared to the use of DCE-MRI features alone, in the classification of breast lesions. However, an interesting result was the negative correlation between R2* and D.

show abstract

Contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging of claustrophobic or oversized patients using an open low-field magnet

Abstract: In claustrophobic or oversized patients, open low-field breast MR with gadobenate dimeglumine yields good diagnostic performance.

Cited by 11 publications

References 56 publications

High-Field Open versus Short-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine: A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Image Quality

High-Field Open versus Short-Bore Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Spine: A Randomized Controlled Comparison of Image Quality

Reasons Women at Elevated Risk of Breast Cancer Refuse Breast MR Imaging Screening: ACRIN 6666

Blood Oxygenation Level Dependent Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI, and Diffusion Weighted MRI for Benign and Malignant Breast Cancer Discrimination: A Preliminary Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About