Breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat suppression: Are contrast-agent uptake curves affected by magnetic field inhomogeneity?
- First Online:
To investigate the effect of magnetic field heterogeneity in breast dynamic contrast-enhanced examinations with fat saturation (DCE-FS).
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.
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.
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.
• 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.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Breast Diagnostic techniques and procedures Neoplasms Gadolinium compound
- 1.Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E (2011) MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet 378:1804–1811Google Scholar
- 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.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.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.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
- 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