Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 28, 2025
Tracking the Mammary Architectural Features and Detecting Breast Cancer with Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Tensor Imaging
Published on: December 15, 2014
Institutional Variability in Ultrafast Breast MR Imaging: Comparing Compressed Sensing and View Sharing Techniques
Maya Honda1,2,3, Masako Kataoka2, Mami Iima2,4
1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Kansai Electric Power Hospital, Osaka, Osaka, Japan.
Purpose:
To assess the institutional variability in ultrafast dynamic contrast-enhanced (UF-DCE) breast MRI using time-resolved angiography with stochastic trajectories (TWIST)-volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination (VIBE) and compressed sensing (CS)-VIBE sequences acquired at 2 different institutions with different patient populations and contrast injection protocols.
Methods:
UF-DCE MR images of 18 patients from site A acquired using a TWIST-VIBE sequence, and UF-DCE MR images of 18 patients from site B acquired with a CS-VIBE sequence, were retrospectively evaluated and compared. The 2-site patient cohort was matched for patient age, background parenchymal enhancement, malignancy or benignity, and lesion size. Qualitative assessments included noise, blurring, poor fat suppression, aliasing artifact, motion artifact, lesion conspicuity, lesion morphology, time-intensity-curve smoothness, and vessel delineation. For quantitative assessment, the bolus arrival time was evaluated for each lesion, and its diagnostic performance in discriminating between benign and malignant lesions was examined using receiver operating characteristics analysis.
Results:
Thirteen malignant and five benign lesions were included from each site. Qualitative evaluation revealed that poor fat suppression and aliasing artifacts were visible in images from site A with TWIST-VIBE (P = 0.004 and P < 0.001), whereas motion artifacts were present in images from site B with CS-VIBE (P = 0.04). Lesion morphology assessments (P < 0.001) and vessel delineation (P < 0.001) were superior for images from site B with CS-VIBE. Bolus arrival time was significantly longer with TWIST-VIBE than with CS-VIBE, for both benign and malignant lesions (P < 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve was 0.55 for site A and 0.69 for site B (P = 0.39).
Conclusion:
Both acquisitions allowed evaluation of breast lesions with good lesion conspicuity and time-intensity-curve smoothness, whereas CS-VIBE was superior to TWIST-VIBE for morphological evaluation of breast lesions and depiction of blood vessels in the breast. Injection rate appears to have a significant impact on semi-quantitative parameters derived from UF-DCE MRI.
