MRI-guided breast biopsy at 3T using a dedicated large core biopsy set: Feasibility and initial results

Meeuwis, Carla; Mann, Ritse M.; Mus, Roel; Winkel, Axel; Boetes, C.; Barentsz, Jelle O.; Veltman, Jeroen

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2010.05.001

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Second, there are imaging restrictions due to the implant material in use. For common MR‐compatible implants, as the gold tip of a catheter (22, 23) or a titanium biopsy needle (24) temperature quantification is possible, as proven in the current study. However, imaging near other implants might be problematic with the proposed method because susceptibility artifacts proscribe temperature quantification.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

MR safety: Fast T₁ thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

Gensler

Fidler

Ehses

et al. 2012

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the MR compatibility of medical implants and devices is becoming increasingly relevant. In most cases, the heating of conductive implants due to radiefrequency (RF) excitation pulses is measured by fluoroptic temperature sensors in relevant tests for approval. Another common method to determine these heating effects is MR thermometry using the proton resonance frequency. This method gives good results in homogeneous phantoms. However in many cases, technical shortcomings such as susceptibility artifacts prohibit exact proton resonance frequency thermometry near medical implants. Therefore, this work aimed at developing a fast T₁-based method which allows controlled MR-related heating of a medical implant while simultaneously quantifying the spatial and temporal temperature distribution. To this end, an inversion recovery snapshot Fast Low-Angle Shot (FLASH) sequence was modified with additional off-resonant heating pulses. With an accelerated imaging method and a sliding-window technique, every 7.6 s a new temperature map could be generated with a spatial in-plane resolution of 2 mm. The temperature deviation from calculated temperature values to reference fluoroptic probe was found to be smaller than 1 K.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

MR safety: Fast T₁ thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

Gensler

Fidler

Ehses

et al. 2012

Magnetic Resonance in Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At 3 T only MRI-guided LCNB has been evaluated [22, 23]. Moreover, no studies directly compare the diagnostic yield of LCNB with VAB at any field strength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MR-guided breast biopsy at 3T: diagnostic yield of large core needle biopsy compared with vacuum-assisted biopsy

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate two MR-guided biopsy techniques at 3 T, large core needle breast biopsy (LCNB) and vacuum-assisted breast biopsy (VAB) and to compare the diagnostic yield and rate of complications to determine the optimal biopsy technique at 3 T.Methods55 LCNB and 64 VAB were consecutively performed. Benign biopsy results were verified by retrospective correlation of histology, with pre-interventional, post-interventional MRI studies and follow-up and were classified as representative or non-representative. Time to follow-up was up to 2 years for the considered non-representative benign lesions. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-squared test.ResultsLCNB was technically successful in 100% of patients (55/55) and VAB in 98% of patients (63/64). Histopathological analysis resulted in 45 (82%) benign, 3 (5%) high-risk and 7 (13%) malignant lesions for LCNB and 43 (67%) benign, 3 (5%) high-risk and 18 (28%) malignant lesions. Distribution was significantly different (p < 0.001), favouring VAB over LCNB.ConclusionBecause of the substantially higher diagnostic yield and certainty of a benign diagnosis, VAB is the optimal biopsy technique at 3 T. LCNB should be considered when VAB is not feasible.

show abstract

“…The use of a 3T MRI system is beneficial for MR‐guided interventions that require accurate visualization of small anatomical targets, as well as soft tissue and osseous lesions . To ensure successful and safe targeting for drug delivery and tissue sampling, accurate visualization of needles and drills is paramount.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Instrument visualization using conventional and compressed sensing SEMAC for interventional MRI at 3T

Sonnow

Gilson

Raithel

et al. 2017

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

MRI-guided breast biopsy at 3T using a dedicated large core biopsy set: Feasibility and initial results

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

MR safety: Fast T₁ thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

MR safety: Fast T₁ thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

MR-guided breast biopsy at 3T: diagnostic yield of large core needle biopsy compared with vacuum-assisted biopsy

Instrument visualization using conventional and compressed sensing SEMAC for interventional MRI at 3T

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

MRI-guided breast biopsy at 3T using a dedicated large core biopsy set: Feasibility and initial results

Cited by 22 publications

References 14 publications

MR safety: Fast T1 thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

MR safety: Fast T1 thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

MR-guided breast biopsy at 3T: diagnostic yield of large core needle biopsy compared with vacuum-assisted biopsy

Instrument visualization using conventional and compressed sensing SEMAC for interventional MRI at 3T

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

MR safety: Fast T₁ thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices

MR safety: Fast T₁ thermometry of the RF‐induced heating of medical devices