European Radiology

, Volume 23, Issue 11, pp 2969–2978 | Cite as

Breast MRI at 7 Tesla with a bilateral coil and T1-weighted acquisition with robust fat suppression: image evaluation and comparison with 3 Tesla

  • Ryan BrownEmail author
  • Pippa Storey
  • Christian Geppert
  • KellyAnne McGorty
  • Ana Paula Klautau Leite
  • James Babb
  • Daniel K. Sodickson
  • Graham C. Wiggins
  • Linda Moy



To evaluate the image quality of T1-weighted fat-suppressed breast MRI at 7 T and to compare 7-T and 3-T images.


Seventeen subjects were imaged using a 7-T bilateral transmit-receive coil and 3D gradient echo sequence with adiabatic inversion-based fat suppression (FS). Images were graded on a five-point scale and quantitatively assessed through signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), fibroglandular/fat contrast and signal uniformity measurements.


Image scores at 7 and 3 T were similar on standard-resolution images (1.1 × 1.1 × 1.1-1.6 mm3), indicating that high-quality breast imaging with clinical parameters can be performed at 7 T. The 7-T SNR advantage was underscored on 0.6-mm isotropic images, where image quality was significantly greater than at 3 T (4.2 versus 3.1, P ≤ 0.0001). Fibroglandular/fat contrast was more than two times higher at 7 T than at 3 T, owing to effective adiabatic inversion-based FS and the inherent 7-T signal advantage. Signal uniformity was comparable at 7 and 3 T (P < 0.05). Similar 7-T image quality was observed in all subjects, indicating robustness against anatomical variation.


The 7-T bilateral transmit-receive coil and adiabatic inversion-based FS technique produce image quality that is as good as or better than at 3 T.

Key Points

High image quality bilateral breast MRI is achievable with clinical parameters at 7 T.

7-T high-resolution imaging improves delineation of subtle soft tissue structures.

Adiabatic-based fat suppression provides excellent fibroglandular/fat contrast at 7 T.

7- and 3-T 3D T1-weighted gradient-echo images have similar signal uniformity.

The 7-T dual solenoid coil enables bilateral imaging without compromising uniformity.


High-field MRI Fat suppression Breast cancer Bilateral breast imaging RF coil array 



This work was funded in part by NIH grant R01 EB002568. The authors thank Sandy Tang and Lisa Piccoli for subject recruitment. Christian Geppert is an employee of Siemens.

Data in the current manuscript were presented in part in Brown et al., "Breast MRI at 7 Tesla with a Bilateral Coil and Robust Fat Suppression," in the Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (accepted for publication, 2013).


  1. 1.
    Brown R, McGorty K, Moy L, DeGregorio S, Sodickson DK, Wiggins GC (2011) Sub-millimeter breast imaging and relaxivity characterization at 7T ISMRM, Montreal, Canada, pp 3092Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown R, Storey P, McGorty K et al (2012) Toward improved T1-weighted breast imaging at 7T: preliminary results and comparison with 3T ISMRM, Melbourne, Australia, pp 2981Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kuhl CK (2007) Breast MR imaging at 3T. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 15:315–320PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Korteweg MA, Veldhuis WB, Visser F et al (2011) Feasibility of 7 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging determination of intrinsic sensitivity and high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, and (1)H-magnetic resonance spectroscopy of breast cancer patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy. Investig Radiol 46:370–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Umutlu L, Maderwald S, Kraff O et al (2010) Dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI at 7 Tesla utilizing a single-loop coil: a feasibility trial. Acad Radiol 17:1050–1056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lee RF, Moy L, Brown R et al (2006) 7T high resolution breast MRI ISMRM, Seattle, WA, pp 2900Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stehouwer BL, Klomp DWJ, Korteweg MA et al. 7 T versus 3 T contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging of invasive ductulolobular carcinoma: first clinical experience. Magn Reson ImagingGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    van de Bank BL, Voogt IJ, Italiaander M et al (2013) Ultra high spatial and temporal resolution breast imaging at 7T. NMR Biomed 26:367–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stehouwer BL, Klomp DWJ, Luijten PR et al (2012) Feasibility of contrast-enhanced and high-resolution 7 Tesla MRI in patients with suspicious breast lesions ISMRM, Melbourne, Australia, pp 1474Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stehouwer BL, Klomp DWJ, Luijten PR, Mali WPTM, van den Bosch MAAJ, Veldhuis WB (2012) Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast at 7T and 3T; initial results of an intra-individual comparison of BI-RADS-MRI lesion assessment ISMRM, Melbourne, Australia, pp 1485Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stehouwer BL, Klomp DW, Korteweg MA et al (2013) 7 T versus 3T contrast-enhanced breast magnetic resonance imaging of invasive ductulolobular carcinoma: first clinical experience. Magn Reson Imaging 31:613–617PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zaric O, Pinker K, Gruber S et al (2013) Diffusion weighted imaging of the breast at 7T – ready for clinical application? ISMRM, Salt Lake City, Utah, pp 196Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lazebnik M, Popovic D, McCartney L et al (2007) A large-scale study of the ultrawideband microwave dielectric properties of normal, benign and malignant breast tissues obtained from cancer surgeries. Phys Med Biol 52:6093–6115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tozaki M, Fukuma E (2009) 1H MR spectroscopy and diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: are they useful tools for characterizing breast lesions before biopsy? AJR Am J Roentgenol 193:840–849PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baltzer PA, Dietzel M, Burmeister HP et al (2011) 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. Am J Roentgenol 196:W641–W647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fautz HP, Vogel M, Gross P, Kerr A, Zhu Y (2008) B1 mapping of coil arrays for parallel transmission ISMRM, Toronto, Ontario, pp 1247Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Constantinides CD, Atalar E, McVeigh ER (1997) Signal-to-noise measurements in magnitude images from NMR phased arrays. Magn Reson Med 38:852–857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reeder SB, Wen Z, Yu H et al (2004) Multicoil Dixon chemical species separation with an iterative least-squares estimation method. Magn Reson Med 51:35–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Glover GH, Schneider E (1991) Three-point Dixon technique for true water/fat decomposition with B0 inhomogeneity correction. Magn Reson Med 18:371–383PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mahoney MC, Gatsonis C, Hanna L, DeMartini WB, Lehman C (2012) Positive predictive value of BI-RADS MR imaging. Radiology 264:51–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krautmacher C, Willinek WA, Tschampa HJ et al (2005) Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T—initial experience. Radiology 237:1014–1019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Elster AD (1997) How much contrast is enough? dependence of enhancement on field strength and MR pulse sequence. Eur Radiol 7:276–280PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuhl CK, Kooijman H, Gieseke J, Schild HH (2007) Effect of B1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology 244:929–930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Azlan CA, Di Giovanni P, Ahearn TS, Semple SI, Gilbert FJ, Redpath TW (2010) B1 transmission-field inhomogeneity and enhancement ratio errors in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging 31:234–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sung K, Daniel BL, Hargreaves BA. Transmit B1+ field inhomogeneity and T1 estimation errors in breast DCE-MRI at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson ImagingGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hancu I, Lee SK, Dixon WT et al (2012) Field shaping arrays: a means to address shading in high field breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 36:865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nnewihe AN, Grafendorfer T, Daniel BL et al (2011) Custom-fitted 16-channel bilateral breast coil for bidirectional parallel imaging. Magn Reson Med 66:281–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan Brown
    • 1
    Email author
  • Pippa Storey
    • 1
  • Christian Geppert
    • 2
  • KellyAnne McGorty
    • 1
  • Ana Paula Klautau Leite
    • 1
  • James Babb
    • 1
  • Daniel K. Sodickson
    • 1
  • Graham C. Wiggins
    • 1
  • Linda Moy
    • 1
  1. 1.Bernard and Irene Schwartz Center for Biomedical Imaging, Department of RadiologyNew York University Langone Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc.New YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations