Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the Same Patients: Initial Experience

Kuhl, Christiane K.; Jost, P.; Morakkabati, N.; Zivanovic, Oliver; Schild, Hans H.; Gieseke, Jürgen

doi:10.1148/radiol.2392050509

Cited by 163 publications

(106 citation statements)

References 45 publications

(40 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…MRI systems operating at 3T become increasingly available in the clinical setting and high field DCE MRI of the breast seems promising because high-resolution images can be acquired, while retaining a high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), allowing more accurate depiction of the morphology of the lesion (21). Another benefit of 3T MR systems is the high SNR compared with 1.5T, which allows data-acquisition with higher b-values.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative diffusion weighted imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: The influence of the choice of b‐values

Peters

Vincken

Bosch

et al. 2010

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative diffusion weighted imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: The influence of the choice of b‐values

Peters

Vincken

Bosch

et al. 2010

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Breast MRI at 3.0T has both technical advantages and challenges [1,2,4,5,[36][37][38] . The higher magnetic field strength (B0) produces a proportionate increase in signal-to-noise ratio, allowing for improvements in both spatial and temporal resolution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After accounting for such parameter adjustments, the SNR remains 1.7-1.8 times greater than imaging at 1.5T [5] (Figures 1 and 2). Kuhl et al [38] evaluated the appearance of 53 lesions in 37 patients imaged at both 1.5T and 3.0T, and reported a higher image quality and diagnostic confidence achieved …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it is recognized that a 3.0T system can produce images of higher spatial, contrast, and temporal resolution [2,4,38] , few investigators have evaluated the impact, if any, of this technical advancement on clinical outcomes in different patient populations [39] . To authors' knowledge, this is the first study to compare the performance of a 3.0T vs a 1.5T system in women referred for pre-operative MRI after a recent breast cancer diagnosis.…”

Section: B Amentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

Butler

Chen²,

Vashi³

et al. 2013

WJR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AIM:To compare 3.0 Tesla (T) vs 1.5T magnetic resonance (MR) imaging systems in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. METHODS:Upon Institutional Review Board approval, a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Actcompliant retrospective review of 147 consecutive 3.0T MR examinations and 98 consecutive 1.5T MR examinations in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer between 7/2009 and 5/2010 was performed. Eleven patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the 3.0T group were excluded. Mammographically occult suspicious lesions (BIRADS Code 4 and 5) additional to the index cancer in the ipsilateral and contralateral breast were identified. Lesion characteristics and pathologic diagnoses were recorded, and results achieved with both systems compared. Statistical significance was analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS:In the 3.0T group, 206 suspicious lesions were identified in 55% (75/136) of patients and 96% (198/206) of these lesions were biopsied. In the 1.5T group, 98 suspicious lesions were identified in 53% (52/98) of patients and 90% (88/98) of these lesions were biopsied. Biopsy results yielded additional malignancies in 24% of patients in the 3.0T group vs 14% of patients in the 1.5T group (33/136 vs 14/98, P = 0.07). Average size and histology of the additional cancers was comparable. Of patients who had a suspicious MR imaging study, additional cancers were found in 44% of patients in the 3.0T group vs 27% in the 1.5T group (33/75 vs 14/52, P = 0.06), yielding a higher positive predictive value (PPV) for biopsies performed with the 3.0T system. CONCLUSION: 3.0T MR imaging detected more additional malignancies in patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer and yielded a higher PPV for biopsies performed with the 3.0T system. © 2013 Baishideng. All rights reserved.Key words: Breast; Breast cancer; Cancer staging; Outcome; Magnetic resonance imaging; Breast magnetic resonance imaging; 3 Tesla; Technical Core tip: 3.0 Tesla (T) breast magnetic resonance (MR) imaging offers superior image quality through improved signal-to-noise ratio and resolution. In a comparison of two nearly identical patient populations of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, a greater number of suspicious lesions and mammographically occult malignancies were detected using an optimized 3.0T system compared to a conventional 1.5T system. The positive predictive value of an abnormal MR imaging study was higher for 3.0T MR imaging compared to 1.5T imaging. These results attest to a clinical benefit and higher accuracy achievable with a 3.0T magnet.Butler RS, Chen C, Vashi R, Hooley RJ, Philpotts LE. 3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. World J Radiol 2013; 5(8): 285-294

show abstract

“…The feasibility of MRI at 3 T for a more accurate detection and assessment of breast lesions has been reported (21), but studies evaluating the response to NAC in breast cancer has not been reported on 3 T. Kuhl et al (21) found increased diagnostic confidence using 3 T compared to 1.5 T MRI for the differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions. Equal image quality has been shown at 1.5 T and 3 T for the heart (22) and female pelvis (23).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: Improved MR assessment at 3 T?

Heldahl

Lundgren

Jensen

et al. 2011

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To investigate possible improvements in predicting the response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) at 3 T for locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). Materials and Methods:Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance (DCE-MR) images acquired before and during NAC were retrospectively analyzed in 85 patients. Tumor volume and diameter, three volumes based on the shape of the enhancement curve, relative signal intensity, area under the curve, and the signal-tonoise ratio were extracted. Differences between responders and nonresponders at the same and between MR timepoints during treatment were evaluated.Results: A higher signal-to-noise ratio was observed on 3 T images compared to 1.5 T, and 3 T revealed more significant findings related to response compared to 1.5 T. The DCE-MRI-derived volume parameters were the earliest predictors of response at both 1.5 and 3 T. Conclusion:Our results show that 3 T provides an improved assessment of the response to NAC in LABC patients, where the MR determined tumor volume reduction before the second cycle of NAC was the strongest and earliest predictor of a response.

show abstract

Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging of the Breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the Same Patients: Initial Experience

Abstract: Initial experiences indicate that contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T is nearing readiness for clinical use.

Cited by 163 publications

References 45 publications

Quantitative diffusion weighted imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: The influence of the choice of b‐values

Quantitative diffusion weighted imaging for differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: The influence of the choice of b‐values

3.0 Tesla vs 1.5 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients

Monitoring neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients: Improved MR assessment at 3 T?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About