Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI parameters of breast lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 T: a pilot study.

OBJECTIVE To compare dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) MRI parameters from scans of breast lesions at 1.5 and 3.0 T. 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, T1 weighted 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 3.0 T were similar; with mean absolute differences of 19% and 22%, respectively. Maximum percent signal enhancement was significantly higher at 3 T than at 1.5 T (p = 0.006). Qualitative assessment showed that image quality was significantly higher at 3 T (p = 0.005). 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.

[1]  Jürgen Gieseke,et al.  Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. , 2006, Radiology.

[2]  D. Parker,et al.  Uncertainty and bias in contrast concentration measurements using spoiled gradient echo pulse sequences , 2008, Physics in medicine and biology.

[3]  R. Fimmers,et al.  Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  N. Herial,et al.  Increasing accuracy of detection of breast cancer with 3-T MRI. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[5]  D. Bluemke,et al.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI of the breast: quantitative method for kinetic curve type assessment. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[6]  Huanzhou Yu,et al.  Relaxation times of breast tissue at 1.5T and 3T measured using IDEAL , 2006, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[7]  C. Lehman,et al.  Improved B1 homogeneity of 3 tesla breast MRI using dual‐source parallel radiofrequency excitation , 2012, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.

[8]  Xiaobing Fan,et al.  New model for analysis of dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI data distinguishes metastatic from nonmetastatic transplanted rodent prostate tumors , 2004, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[9]  Jong Hyo Kim,et al.  Multilevel analysis of spatiotemporal association features for differentiation of tumor enhancement patterns in breast DCE-MRI. , 2010, Medical physics.

[10]  L. Esserman,et al.  Locally advanced breast cancer: MR imaging for prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy--results from ACRIN 6657/I-SPY TRIAL. , 2012, Radiology.

[11]  Thomas E Yankeelov,et al.  Integration of quantitative DCE-MRI and ADC mapping to monitor treatment response in human breast cancer: initial results. , 2007, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[12]  A. Padhani,et al.  Reproducibility of quantitative dynamic MRI of normal human tissues , 2002, NMR in biomedicine.

[13]  E. Hauth,et al.  Evaluation of the three-time-point method for diagnosis of breast lesions in contrast-enhanced MR mammography. , 2006, Clinical imaging.

[14]  Daniel B Kopans,et al.  Physiologic Changes in Breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging during the Menstrual Cycle: Perfusion Imaging, Signal Enhancement, and Influence of the T1 Relaxation Time of Breast Tissue , 2005, The breast journal.

[15]  Hiroyuki Abe,et al.  Differentiation between benign and malignant breast lesions detected by bilateral dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI: A sensitivity and specificity study , 2008, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[16]  Xiaobing Fan,et al.  Kinetic curves of malignant lesions are not consistent across MRI systems: need for improved standardization of breast dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI acquisition. , 2009, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  N. Hylton.  Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as an imaging biomarker. , 2006, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[18]  C. Kuhl,et al.  Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? , 1999, Radiology.

[19]  Laura Esserman,et al.  Contrast‐Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Assess Tumor Histopathology and Angiogenesis in Breast Carcinoma , 1999, The breast journal.

[20]  Clinical Experience of 3T Breast MRI in Detecting the Additional Lesions in Breast Cancer Patients , 2010 .

[21]  G. Newstead,et al.  Diagnosis of suspicious breast lesions using an empirical mathematical model for dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. , 2007, Magnetic resonance imaging.

[22]  D. Altman,et al.  Multiple significance tests: the Bonferroni method , 1995, BMJ.

[23]  Wolfgang Bogner,et al.  A Combined High Temporal and High Spatial Resolution 3 Tesla MR Imaging Protocol for the Assessment of Breast Lesions: Initial Results , 2009, Investigative radiology.

[24]  Ying Lu,et al.  Kinetic assessment of breast tumors using high spatial resolution signal enhancement ratio (SER) imaging , 2007, Magnetic resonance in medicine.

[25]  H. Khalil,et al.  Improving outcomes of screening breast MRI with practice evolution: Initial clinical experience with 3T compared to 1.5T , 2014, Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI.