European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 6, pp 1537–1545

Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat suppression: Are contrast-agent uptake curves affected by magnetic field inhomogeneity?

  • Maria A. Schmidt
  • M. Borri
  • E. Scurr
  • G. Ertas
  • G. Payne
  • E. O’Flynn
  • N. deSouza
  • M. O. Leach
Breast

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the effect of magnetic field heterogeneity in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat saturation (DCE-FS).

Methods

The magnetic field was mapped over the breasts in ten patients. DCE-FS was undertaken at 1.5 T with fast spoiled gradient echoes and spectrally selective fat saturation. Signal intensity was calculated for T1 values 25–1,200 ms both on and off resonance, and results were verified with a test object. Clinical examinations were evaluated for the predicted effects of field heterogeneity.

Results

Magnetic field was found to vary by 3.6 ± 1.2 ppm over the central transaxial slice and 5.1 ± 1.5 over the whole breast volume (mean ± standard deviation). Computer simulations predict a reduction in the dynamic range if field heterogeneity leads to unintended water suppression, and distortion to CA uptake curves due to fat suppression failure (for fat containing pixels). A compromise between dynamic range and fat saturation performance is required. Both water suppression and fat suppression failure are apparent in clinical examinations.

Conclusion

Magnetic field heterogeneity is likely to reduce the sensitivity of DCE-FS by distorting the CA uptake curves because of fat suppression failure (for fat containing pixels) and by reducing the dynamic range because of unintended water suppression.

Key Points

Magnetic field heterogeneity is significant in breast magnetic resonance.

Contrast-agent uptake curves are distorted by a non-uniform magnetic field.

Radiologist must be aware of possibility of distortion to interpret uptake curves correctly.

Compromise between fat suppression and dynamic range is required.

Keywords

Magnetic resonance imaging Breast Diagnostic techniques and procedures Neoplasms Gadolinium compound 

References

  1. 1.
    Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E (2011) MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet 378:1804–1811Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DeMartini W, Lehman C, Partridge S (2008) Breast MRI for cancer detection and characterization: a review of evidence-based clinical applications. Acad Radiol 15:408–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Goethem M, Verslegers I, Biltjes I, Hufkens G, Parizel PM (2009) Role of MRI of the breast in the evaluation of the symptomatic patient. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 21:74–79CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kuhl C, Kuhn W, Braun M, Schild H (2007) Pre-operative staging of breast cancer with breast MRI: one step forward, two steps back? Breast 16:S34–S44CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Plana MN, Carreira C, Muriel A, Chiva M, Abraira V, Emparanza JI, Bonfill X, Zamora J (2012) Magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative assessment of patients with primary breast cancer: systematic review of diagnostic accuracy and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 22:26–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    US Preventive Services Task Force (2009) Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 151:716–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Saslow D, Boetes C, Burke W et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lee CH, Dershaw DD, Kopans D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7:18–27CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Familial Breast Cancer. The Classification and Care of Women at Risk of Familial Breast Cancer in Primary, Secondary and Tertiary Care (Partial Update of NICE Clinical Guideline 14). National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, 2006 (NICE Clinical Guideline 41). Available http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/10994/30244/30244.pdf. Accessed 20/02/2012
  10. 10.
    Dall BJG, Gilbert F, Leach M, Wilson R (2009) Technical Guidelines for Magnetic Resonance Imaging for the Surveillance of Women at Increased Risk of Developing Breast Cancer. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes, (NHSBSP Publication No 68). Available https://www.nbss.nhs.uk/documents/1194%20MRI%20surveillance%20ed%20v6%203%2023%2012%2009.pdf Accessed 20/02/2012
  11. 11.
    American College of Radiology (2003) BI-RADS: MRI. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: BI-RADS Atlas, 4th edn. American College of Radiology, RestonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leach MO et al (2005) MARIBS study group. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769–1778CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’agnolo G et al (2007) Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT Study): interim results. Radiology 242:689–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1317–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hagen AI, Kvistad KA, Maehle L et al (2007) Sensitivity of MRI versus conventional screening in the diagnosis of BRCA-associated breast cancer in a national prospective series. Breast 16:367–374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lehman CD, BLume JD, Weatherall P et al (2005) Screening women at high risk for breast cancer with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 103:1898–1905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Le-Petross HT, Whitman GJ, Atchley DP, Yuan Y, Gutierrez-Barrera A, Hortobagyi GN, Litton JK, Arun BK (2011) Effectiveness of alternating mammography and magnetic resonance imaging for screening women with deleterious BRCA mutations at high risk of breast cancer. Cancer 117:3900–3907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Warner E, Causer PA, Wong JW, Wright FC, Jong RA, Hill KA, Messner SJ, Yaffe MJ, Narod SA, Plewes DB (2011) Improvement in DCIS detection rates by MRI over time in a high-risk breast screening study. Breast J 17(1):9–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Price J, Chen SW (2009) Screening for breast cancer with MRI: recent experience from the Australian Capital Territory. J Med Imaging Rad Oncol 53:69–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jansen SA, Shimauchi A, Zak L et al (2009) Kinetic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition. Am J Roentgenol 1993:832–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Maril N, Collins CM, Greenman RL, Lenkinski RE (2005) Strategies for shimming the breast. Magn Reson Med 54:1139–1145CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Haase A (1990) Snapshot FLASH MRI, applications to T1, T2 and chemical-shift imaging. Magn Reson Med 13:77–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mugler JP, Brookerman JR (1991) Rapid three-dimensional T1-weighted MR imaging with the MP-RAGE sequence. J Magn Reson Imaging 1:561–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Di Giovanni P, Azlan CA, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW (2010) The accuracy of pharmacokinetic parameter measurement in DCE-MRI of the breast at 3 T. Phys Med Biol 55:121–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rakow-Penner R, Daniel B, Yu H, Sawer-Glover A, Glover GH (2006) Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5 T and 3 T measured using IDEAL. J Mang Reson Imaging 23:87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    De Naeyer D, Verhulst J, CeelenW SP, De Deene Y, Verdonck P (2011) Flip angle optimization fro dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-studies with spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 56:5373–5395CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schabel MC, Parker DL (2008) Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient-echo pulse sequences. Phys Med Biol 53:2345–2373CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria A. Schmidt
    • 1
  • M. Borri
    • 1
  • E. Scurr
    • 1
  • G. Ertas
    • 1
  • G. Payne
    • 1
  • E. O’Flynn
    • 1
  • N. deSouza
    • 1
  • M. O. Leach
    • 1
  1. 1.Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust and Institute of Cancer ResearchSuttonUK

Personalised recommendations