TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters of breast lesions at 1.5 and 3.0T
T2 - A pilot study
AU - Pineda, F. D.
AU - Medved, M.
AU - Fan, X.
AU - Ivancevic, M. K.
AU - Abe, H.
AU - Shimauchi, A.
AU - Newstead, G. M.
AU - Karczmar, G. S.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 The Authors. Published by the British Institute of Radiology.
PY - 2015/5/1
Y1 - 2015/5/1
N2 - Objective: To compare dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI parameters from scans of breast lesions at 1.5 and 3.0T. Methods: 11 patients underwent paired MRI examinations in both Philips 1.5 and 3.0 T systems (Best, Netherlands) using a standard clinical fat-suppressed, T1weighted DCE-MRI protocol, with 70-76 s temporal resolution. Signal intensity vs time curves were fit with an empirical mathematical model to obtain semi-quantitative measures of uptake and washout rates as well as time-to-peak enhancement (TTP). Maximum percent enhancement and signal enhancement ratio (SER) were also measured for each lesion. Percent differences between parameters measured at the two field strengths were compared. Results: TTP and SER parameters measured at 1.5 and 3.0T were similar; with mean absolute differences of 19% and 22%, respectively. Maximum percent signal enhancement was significantly higher at 3T than at 1.5T (p50.006). Qualitative assessment showed that image quality was significantly higher at 3T (p50.005). Conclusion: Our results suggest that TTP and SER are more robust to field strength change than other measured kinetic parameters, and therefore measurements of these parameters can be more easily standardized than measurements of other parameters derived from DCE-MRI. Semi-quantitative measures of overall kinetic curve shape showed higher reproducibility than do discrete classification of kinetic curve early and delayed phases in a majority of the cases studied. Advances in knowledge: Qualitative measures of curve shape are not consistent across field strength even when acquisition parameters are standardized. Quantitative measures of overall kinetic curve shape, by contrast, have higher reproducibility.
AB - Objective: To compare dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI parameters from scans of breast lesions at 1.5 and 3.0T. Methods: 11 patients underwent paired MRI examinations in both Philips 1.5 and 3.0 T systems (Best, Netherlands) using a standard clinical fat-suppressed, T1weighted DCE-MRI protocol, with 70-76 s temporal resolution. Signal intensity vs time curves were fit with an empirical mathematical model to obtain semi-quantitative measures of uptake and washout rates as well as time-to-peak enhancement (TTP). Maximum percent enhancement and signal enhancement ratio (SER) were also measured for each lesion. Percent differences between parameters measured at the two field strengths were compared. Results: TTP and SER parameters measured at 1.5 and 3.0T were similar; with mean absolute differences of 19% and 22%, respectively. Maximum percent signal enhancement was significantly higher at 3T than at 1.5T (p50.006). Qualitative assessment showed that image quality was significantly higher at 3T (p50.005). Conclusion: Our results suggest that TTP and SER are more robust to field strength change than other measured kinetic parameters, and therefore measurements of these parameters can be more easily standardized than measurements of other parameters derived from DCE-MRI. Semi-quantitative measures of overall kinetic curve shape showed higher reproducibility than do discrete classification of kinetic curve early and delayed phases in a majority of the cases studied. Advances in knowledge: Qualitative measures of curve shape are not consistent across field strength even when acquisition parameters are standardized. Quantitative measures of overall kinetic curve shape, by contrast, have higher reproducibility.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928138680&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928138680&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1259/bjr.20150021
DO - 10.1259/bjr.20150021
M3 - Article
C2 - 25785918
AN - SCOPUS:84928138680
VL - 88
JO - British Journal of Radiology
JF - British Journal of Radiology
SN - 0007-1285
IS - 1049
M1 - 20150021
ER -