Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fat suppression strategies in MR imaging of breast cancer at 3.0 T: comparison of the two-point Dixon technique and the frequency selective inversion method

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Japanese Journal of Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To compare two fat suppression methods in contrast-enhanced MR imaging of breast cancer at 3.0 T: the two-point Dixon method and the frequency selective inversion method.

Materials and methods

Forty female patients with breast cancer underwent contrast-enhanced three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging at 3.0 T. Both the two-point Dixon method and the frequency selective inversion method were applied. Quantitative analyses of the residual fat signal-to-noise ratio and the contrast noise ratio (CNR) of lesion-to-breast parenchyma, lesion-to-fat, and parenchyma-to-fat were performed. Qualitative analyses of the uniformity of fat suppression, image contrast, and the visibility of breast lesions and axillary metastatic adenopathy were performed.

Results

The signal-to-noise ratio was significantly lower in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001). All CNR values were significantly higher in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). According to qualitative analysis, both the uniformity of fat suppression and image contrast with the two-point Dixon method were significantly higher (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). Visibility of breast lesions and metastatic adenopathy was significantly better in the two-point Dixon method (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively).

Conclusion

The two-point Dixon method suppressed the fat signal more potently and improved contrast and visibility of the breast lesions and axillary adenopathy.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001;220:13–30.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W, Leach MO, Lehman CD, Morris E, et al. American cancer society breast cancer advisory group. American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:75–89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kuhl C. The current status of breast MR imaging. Part I. Choice of technique, image interpretation, diagnostic accuracy, and transfer to clinical practice. Radiology. 2007;244:356–78.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Niitsu M, Tohno E, Itai Y. Fat suppression strategies in enhanced MR imaging of the breast: comparison of SPIR and water excitation sequences. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2003;18:310–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Manganaro L, Fierro F, Tomei A, Irimia D, Lodise P, Sergi ME, et al. Feasibility of 3.0 T pelvic MR imaging in the evaluation of endometriosis. Eur J Radiol. 2012;81:1381–7.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Lin W, An H, Chen Y, Nicholas P, Zhai G, Gerig G, et al. Practical consideration for 3T imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2003;11:615–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Elsamaloty H, Elzawawi MS, Mohammad S, Herial N. Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3-T MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192:1142–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N, Zivanovic O, Schild HH, Gieseke J. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology. 2006;239:666–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cornfeld DM, Israel G, McCarthy SM, Weinreb JC. Pelvic imaging using a T1W fat-suppressed three-dimensional dual echo Dixon technique at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:121–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Frahm J, Haase A, Hänicke W, Matthaei D, Bomsdorf H, Helzel T. Chemical shift selective MR imaging using a whole-body magnet. Radiology. 1985;156:441–4.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Haase A, Frahm J, Hänicke W, Matthaei D. 1H NMR chemical shift selective (CHESS) imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1985;30:341–4.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Foo TKF, Sawyer AM, Faulkner WH, Mills DG. Inversion in the steady state: contrast optimization and reduced imaging time with fast three-dimensional inversion-recovery-prepared GRE pulse sequences. Radiology. 1994;191:85–90.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Bydder GM, Young IR. MR imaging: clinical use of the inversion recovery sequence. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1985;9:659–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dixon WT. Simple proton spectroscopic imaging. Radiology. 1984;153:189–94.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Berglund J, Ahlström H, Johansson L, Kullberg J. Two-point dixon method with flexible echo times. Magn Reson Med. 2011;65:994–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Le-Petross H, Kundra V, Szklaruk J, Wei W, Hortobagyi GN, Ma J. Fast three-dimensional dual echo dixon technique improves fat suppression in breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31:889–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dogan BE, Ma J, Hwang K, Liu P, Tse Yang WT. T1-weighted 3D dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast using a dual-echo dixon technique at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2011;34:842–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Le-Petross HT, Cristofanilli M, Carkaci S, Krishnamurthy S, Jackson EF, Harrell RK, et al. MRI features of inflammatory breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:769–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Gutierrez RL, Strigel RM, Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Eby PR, Stone KM, et al. Dynamic breast MRI: does lower temporal resolution negatively affect clinical kinetic analysis? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;199:703–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Parsian S, Rahbar H, Allison KH, Demartini WB, Olson ML, Lehman CD, et al. Nonmalignant breast lesions: ADCs of benign and high-risk subtypes assessed as false-positive at dynamic enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2012;265:696–706.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Baltzer PAT, Dietzel M, Burmeister HP, Zoubi R, Gajda M, Camara O, et al. Application of MR mammography beyond local staging: is there a potential to accurately assess axillary lymph nodes? Evaluation of an extended protocol in an initial prospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196:641–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Kvistad KA, Rydland J, Smethurst HB, Lundgren S, Fjosne HE, Haraldseth O. Axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: preoperative detection with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Eur Radiol. 2000;10:1464–71.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Murray AD, Staff RT, Redpath TW, Gilbert FJ, Ah-See AK, Brookes JA, et al. Dynamic contrast enhanced MRI of the axilla in women with breast cancer: comparison with pathology of excised nodes. Br J Radiol. 2002;75:220–8.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Ma J. Dixon techniques for water and fat imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2008;28:543–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Axel L, Kolman L, Charaffedine R, Hwang SN, Stolpen AH. Origin of a signal intensity loss artifact in fat-saturation MR imaging. Radiology. 2000;217:911–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Kerslake RW, Carleton PJ, Fox JN, Imire MJ, Cook AM, Read JR, et al. Dynamic gradient-echo and fat-suppressed spin-echo contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast. Clin Radiol. 1995;50:440–54.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Rankin SC. MRI of the breast. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:806–18.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Toshiki Kazama

    Present address: Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tokai University School of Medicine, Isehara, Kanagawa, 259-1193, Japan

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Wakako Kaneko Mikami, Hajime Yokota, Takashi Higashide, Takuro Horikoshi, Ken Motoori & Takashi Uno

  2. Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Radiation Oncology, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Toshiki Kazama

  3. Department of Radiology, Chiba University Hospital, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8677, Japan

    Hirotaka Sato

  4. Department of Frontier Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Yukimasa Miyazawa

  5. Department of General Surgery, Chiba University Graduate School of Medicine, 1-8-1 Inohana, Chuo-ku, Chiba City, Chiba, 260-8670, Japan

    Takeshi Nagashima

Authors
  1. Wakako Kaneko Mikami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Toshiki Kazama
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hirotaka Sato
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hajime Yokota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Takashi Higashide
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Takuro Horikoshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Ken Motoori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yukimasa Miyazawa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Takeshi Nagashima
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Takashi Uno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wakako Kaneko Mikami.

About this article

Cite this article

Mikami, W.K., Kazama, T., Sato, H. et al. Fat suppression strategies in MR imaging of breast cancer at 3.0 T: comparison of the two-point Dixon technique and the frequency selective inversion method. Jpn J Radiol 31, 615–622 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-013-0230-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11604-013-0230-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation