Fat suppression techniques (STIR vs. SPAIR) on diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions at 3.0 T: preliminary experience
- 367 Downloads
The aim of this work was to perform a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the performance of two fat suppression techniques on breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).
Materials and methods
Fifty-one women underwent clinical breast magnetic resonance imaging, including DWI with short TI inversion recovery (STIR) and spectral attenuated inversion recovery (SPAIR). Four were excluded from the analysis due to image artefacts. Rating of fat suppression uniformity and lesion visibility were performed. Agreement between the two sequences was evaluated. Additionally, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR), and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values for normal gland, benign and malignant lesions were compared. Receiver operating characteristic analysis was also performed.
From the 52 lesions found, 47 were detected by both sequences. DWI-STIR evidenced more homogeneous fat suppression (p = 0.03). Although these lesions were seen with both techniques, DWI-SPAIR evidenced higher score for lesion visibility in nine of them. SNR and CNR were comparable, except for SNR in benign lesions (p < 0.01), which was higher for DWI-SPAIR. Mean ADC values for lesions were similar. ADC for normal fibroglandular tissue was higher when using DWI-STIR (p = 0.006). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and area under the curve values were alike: 84.0 % for both; 77.3, 71.4 %; 80.9, 78.3 %; 82.5, 81.3 % for DWI-SPAIR and DWI-STIR, respectively.
DWI-STIR showed superior fat suppression homogeneity. No differences were found for SNR and CNR, except for SNR in benign lesions. ADCs for lesions were comparable. Findings in this study are consistent with previous studies at 1.5 T, meaning that both fat suppression techniques are appropriate for breast DWI at 3.0 T.
KeywordsMagnetic resonance imaging Breast diffusion-weighted imaging Fat suppression techniques Image quality
Grant sponsor from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology; Grant Number: PEst-OE/SAU/UI0645/2011 and SFRH/BD/50027/2009.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- 18.Altman DG (1991) Practical statistics for medical research. Chapman & Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar