Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of conventional and higher-resolution reduced-FOV diffusion-weighted imaging of breast tissue

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Magnetic Resonance Materials in Physics, Biology and Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Reduced FOV-diffusion-weighted imaging (rFOV-DWI) allows for acquisition of a tissue region without back-folding, and may have better fat suppression than conventional DWI imaging (c-DWI). The aim was to compare the ADCs obtained with c-DWI bilateral-breast imaging with single-breast rFOV-DWI.

Materials and Methods

Breasts of 38 patients were scanned at 3 T. The mean ADC values obtained for 38 lesions, and fibro-glandular (N = 35) and adipose (N = 38) tissue ROIs were compared between c-DWI and higher-resolution rFOV-DWI (Wilcoxon rank test). Also, the ADCs were compared between the two acquisitions for an oil-only phantom and a combined water/oil phantom. Furthermore, ghost artifacts were assessed.

Results

No significant difference in mean ADC was found between the acquisitions for lesions (c-DWI: 1.08 × 10–3 mm2/s, rFOV-DWI: 1.13 × 10–3 mm2/s) and fibro-glandular tissue. For adipose tissue, the ADC using rFOV-DWI (0.31 × 10–3 mm2/s) was significantly higher than c-DWI (0.16 × 10–3 mm2/s). For the oil-only phantom, no difference in ADC was found. However, for the water/oil phantom, the ADC of oil was significantly higher with rFOV-DWI compared to c-DWI.

Discussion

Although ghost artifacts were observed for both acquisitions, they appeared to have a greater impact for rFOV-DWI. However, no differences in mean lesions’ ADC values were found, and therefore this study suggests that rFOV can be used diagnostically for single-breast DWI imaging.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Rieseberg S, Frahm J, Finsterbusch J (2002) Two-dimensional spatially-selective RF excitation pulses in echo-planar Imaging. Magn Reson Med 47(6):1186–1193

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schneider Evaluation of 2DRF Echo-Planar Pulse Designs for Parallel Transmission. In: ISMRM, 2012.

  3. Mei CS, Panych LP, Yuan J, McDannold NJ, Treat LH, Jing Y, Madore B (2011) Combining two-dimensional spatially selective RF excitation, parallel imaging, and UNFOLD for accelerated MR thermometry imaging. Magn Reson Med 66(1):112–122

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Katscher U, Bornert P, Leussler C, van den Brink JS (2003) Transmit sense. Magn Reson Med 49(1):144–150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dong HB, Li YD, Li H, Wang B, Hu B (2014) Study of the reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast. Clin Breast Cancer 14(4):265–271

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Saritas EU, Cunningham CH, Lee JH, Han ET, Nishimura DG (2008) DWI of the spinal cord with reduced FOV single-shot EPI. Magn Reson Med 60(2):468–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Tamada T, Ream JM, Doshi AM, Taneja SS, Rosenkrantz AB (2017) Reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the prostate at 3 tesla: comparison with standard echo-planar imaging technique for image quality and tumor assessment. J Comput Assist Tomo 41(6):949–956

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen MZ, Feng C, Wang QX, Li JL, Wu SS, Hu DY, Deng BD, Li Z (2021) Comparison of reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and conventional DWI techniques in the assessment of Cervical carcinoma at 3.0T: Image quality and FIGO staging. Eur J Radiol 137.

  9. von Morze C, Kelley DAC, Shepherd TM, Banerjee S, Xu DA, Hess CP (2010) Reduced field-of-view diffusion-weighted imaging of the brain at 7 T. Magn Reson Imaging 28(10):1541–1545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Thierfelder KM, Sommer WH, Dietrich O, Meinel FG, Theisen D, Paprottka PM, Strobl FF, Pfeuffer J, Reiser MF, Nikolaou K (2014) Parallel-transmit-accelerated spatially-selective excitation MRI for reduced-FOV diffusion-weighted-imaging of the pancreas. Eur J Radiol 83(10):1709–1714

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Arthurs OJ, Graves MJ, Edwards AD, Joubert I, Set PAK, Lomas DJ (2014) Interactive neonatal gastrointestinal magnetic resonance imaging using fruit juice as an oral contrast media. BMC Med Imaging 14.

  12. Rakow-Penner R, Daniel B, Yu HZ, Sawyer-Glover A, Glover GH (2006) Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measured using IDEAL. J Magn Reson Imaging 23(1):87–91.

  13. Singer L, Wilmes LJ, Saritas EU, Shankaranarayanan A, Proctor E, Wisner DJ, Chang B, Joe BN, Nishimura DG, Hylton NM (2012) High-resolution diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in patients with locally advanced breast cancer. Acad Radiol 19(5):526–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barentsz MW, Taviani V, Chang JM, Ikeda DM, Miyake KK, Banerjee S, van den Bosch MA, Hargreaves BA, Daniel BL (2015) Assessment of tumor morphology on diffusion-weighted (DWI) breast MRI: diagnostic value of reduced field of view DWI. J Magn Reson Imaging 42(6):1656–1665

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilmes LJ, McLaughlin RL, Newitt DC, Singer L, Sinha SP, Proctor E, Wisner DJ, Saritas EU, Kornak J, Shankaranarayanan A, Banerjee S, Jones EF, Joe BN, Hylton NM (2013) High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging for monitoring breast cancer treatment response. Acad Radiol 20(5):581–589

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Baron P, Dorrius MD, Kappert P, Oudkerk M, Sijens PE (2010) Diffusion-weighted imaging of normal fibroglandular breast tissue: influence of microperfusion and fat suppression technique on the apparent diffusion coefficient. NMR Biomed 23(4):399–405

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Englander SA, Ulug AM, Brem R, Glickson JD, van Zijl PC (1997) Diffusion imaging of human breast. NMR Biomed 10(7):348–352

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dietrich O, Heiland S, Sartor K (2001) Noise correction for the exact determination of apparent diffusion coefficients at low SNR. Magn Reson Med 45(3):448–453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands

    Paul Baron, Mirjam Wielema, Hildebrand Dijkstra, Jan Hendrik Potze, Monique D. Dorrius & Paul E. Sijens

Authors
  1. Paul Baron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mirjam Wielema
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hildebrand Dijkstra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jan Hendrik Potze
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Monique D. Dorrius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Paul E. Sijens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Baron.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standard

This is a prospective institutional review board approved study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Baron, P., Wielema, M., Dijkstra, H. et al. Comparison of conventional and higher-resolution reduced-FOV diffusion-weighted imaging of breast tissue. Magn Reson Mater Phy 36, 613–619 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01055-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10334-022-01055-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation