Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Original article

Quantification of breast biopsy clip marker artifact on routine breast MRI sequences: a phantom study

Authors: Christian Kremser, Leonhard Gruber, Matthias Dietzel, Birgit Amort, Wolfram Santner, Martin Daniaux

Published in: European Radiology Experimental | Issue 1/2024

Abstract

Background

To investigate the artifact sizes of four common breast clip-markers on a standard breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) protocol in an in vitro phantom model.

Methods

Using 1.5-T and 3-T whole-body scanners with an 18-channel breast coil, artifact dimensions of four breast biopsy markers in an agarose-gel phantom were measured by two readers on images obtained with the following sequences: T2-weighted fast spin-echo short inversion time fat-suppressed inversion-recovery with magnitude reconstruction (T2-TIRM); T1-weighted spoiled gradient-echo with fat suppression (T1_FL3D), routinely used for dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging; diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), including a readout segmented echo-planar imaging (RESOLVE-DWI) and echo-planar imaging sequence (EPI-DWI). After outlining the artifacts by freehand regions of interest, sagittal and lateral diameters in axial images were measured.

Results

Interreader agreement for artifact size quantification was high, depending on the sequence (80.4–94.8%). Overall, the size, shape, and appearance of artifacts depended on clip type and MRI sequence. The artifact size ranged from 5.7 × 8.5 mm² to 13.4 × 17.7 mm² at 1.5 T and from 6.6 × 8.2 mm² to 17.7 × 20.7 mm² at 3 T. Clip artifacts were largest on EPI-DWI and RESOLVE-DWI (p ≤ 0.016). In three out of four clips, T2-TIRM showed the smallest artifact (p ≤ 0.002), while in one clip the artifact was smallest on T1_FL3D (p = 0.026). With the exception of one clip in the RESOLVE sequence, all clips showed a decrease in the artifact area from DWI to ADC images (p ≤ 0.037).

Conclusion

Breast clip-marker MRI artifact appearances depend on clip type, field strength, and sequence and may reach a significant size, potentially obscuring smaller lesions and hindering accurate assessment of breast tumors.

Relevance statement

Considerable variations in artifact size and characteristics across different breast clips, MRI sequences, and field strengths exist. Awareness of these artifacts and their characteristics is essential to ensure accurate interpretation of scans and appropriate treatment planning.

Key Points

Awareness of breast clip artifacts is essential for accurate interpretation of MRI.
The appearance of artifacts depends on breast clip type, field strength, and sequence.
Clip-related artifacts might hinder the visibility of small lesions.

Graphical Abstract

Available only for authorised users

Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022 CA Cancer J Clin 72:7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708CrossRefPubMed

Lalonde L, David J, Trop I (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: current indications. Can Assoc Radiol J 56:301–308PubMed

Macura KJ, Ouwerkerk R, Jacobs MA, Bluemke DA (2006) Patterns of enhancement on breast MR images: interpretation and imaging pitfalls. Radiographics 26:1719–1734. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.266065025CrossRefPubMed

Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 237:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371041369CrossRefPubMed

Davis PL, Staiger MJ, Harris KB et al (1996) Breast cancer measurements with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasonography, and mammography. Breast Cancer Res Treat 37:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01806626CrossRefPubMed

Waks AG, Winer EP (2019) Breast cancer treatment: a review. JAMA 321:288–300. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.19323CrossRefPubMed

Baron LF, Baron PL, Ackerman SJ, Durden DD, Pope TL Jr (2000) Sonographically guided clip placement facilitates localization of breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:539–540. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.174.2.1740539CrossRefPubMed

Dash N, Chafin SH, Johnson RR, Contractor FM (1999) Usefulness of tissue marker clips in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 173:911–917. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.173.4.10511147CrossRefPubMed

Thomassin-Naggara I, Lalonde L, David J, Darai E, Uzan S, Trop I (2012) A plea for the biopsy marker: How, why and why not clipping after breast biopsy? Breast Cancer Res Treat 132:881–893. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-011-1847-xCrossRefPubMed

10.

Oh JL, Nguyen G, Whitman GJ et al (2007) Placement of radiopaque clips for tumor localization in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy and breast conservation therapy. Cancer 110:2420–2427. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.23068CrossRefPubMed

11.

Genson CC, Blane CE, Helvie MA, Waits SA, Chenevert TL (2007) Effects on breast MRI of artifacts caused by metallic tissue marker clips. AJR Am J Roentgenol 188:372–376. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1254CrossRefPubMed

12.

Mann RM, Cho N, Moy L (2019) Breast MRI: state of the art. Radiology 292:520–536. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019182947CrossRefPubMed

13.

Marino MA, Helbich T, Baltzer P, Pinker-Domenig K (2018) Multiparametric MRI of the breast: a review. J Magn Reson Imaging 47:301–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25790CrossRefPubMed

14.

Kato H, Kuroda M, Yoshimura K et al (2005) Composition of MRI phantom equivalent to human tissues. Med Phys 32:3199–3208. https://doi.org/10.1118/1.2047807CrossRefPubMed

15.

Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2010.02.015CrossRefPubMed

16.

Fleckenstein JL, Archer BT, Barker BA, Vaughan JT, Parkey RW, Peshock RM (1991) Fast short-tau inversion-recovery MR imaging. Radiology 179:499–504. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.179.2.2014300CrossRefPubMed

17.

Bogner W, Pinker-Domenig K, Bickel H et al (2012) Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging improves the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR breast examinations at 3.0 T. Radiology 263:64–76. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111494CrossRefPubMed

18.

Holdsworth SJ, Skare S, Newbould RD, Guzmann R, Blevins NH, Bammer R (2008) Readout-segmented EPI for rapid high resolution diffusion imaging at 3 T. Eur J Radiol 65:36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2007.09.016CrossRefPubMed

19.

Team RC (2022) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna. Available via https://www.R-project.org/

20.

Gamer M, Lemon J, Fellows I, Singh P (2019) irr: Various coefficients of interrater reliability and agreement. Available via https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=irr

21.

Shah AD, Mehta AK, Talati N, Brem R, Margolies LR (2018) Breast tissue markers: Why? What’s out there? How do I choose? Clin imaging 52:123–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.07.003CrossRefPubMed

22.

Smith S, Taylor CR, Kanevsky E, Povoski SP, Hawley JR (2021) Long-term safety and efficacy of breast biopsy markers in clinical practice. Expert Rev Med Devices 18:121–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2020.1852928CrossRefPubMed

23.

Gao Y, Reig B, Heacock L, Bennett DL, Heller SL, Moy L (2021) Magnetic resonance imaging in screening of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 59:85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.004CrossRefPubMed

24.

Argus A, Mahoney MC (2011) Indications for breast MRI: case-based review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:WS1–WS14. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.7213CrossRefPubMed

25.

Puesken M, Unterberg-Buchwald C, Rhiem K et al (2021) Ex vivo study of artifacts caused by breast tissue markers with different 1.5 Tesla and 3 Tesla MRI scanners—a bicentric study. Acad Radiol 28:77–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2019.12.006CrossRefPubMed

26.

Pinkney DM, Mychajlowycz M, Shah BA (2016) A prospective comparative study to evaluate the displacement of four commercially available breast biopsy markers. Br J Radiol 89:20160149. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Sakamoto N, Fukuma E, Tsunoda Y, Teraoka K, Koshida Y (2018) Evaluation of the dislocation and long-term sonographic detectability of a hydrogel-based breast biopsy site marker. Breast Cancer 25:575–582. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-018-0854-8CrossRefPubMed

Title: Quantification of breast biopsy clip marker artifact on routine breast MRI sequences: a phantom study
Authors: Christian Kremser
Leonhard Gruber
Matthias Dietzel
Birgit Amort
Wolfram Santner
Martin Daniaux
Publication date: 01-12-2024
Publisher: Springer Vienna
Published in: European Radiology Experimental / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 2509-9280
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41747-024-00525-2

Investigating patellar motion using weight-bearing dynamic CT: normative values and morphological considerations for healthy volunteers

Open Access
Original Article

Intraindividual reproducibility of myocardial radiomic features between energy-integrating detector and photon-counting detector CT angiography

Open Access
Original article

Accelerated IVIM-corrected DTI in acute hamstring injury: towards a clinically feasible acquisition time

Open Access
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Original article

Image annotation and curation in radiology: an overview for machine learning practitioners

Open Access
Artificial Intelligence
Narrative review

Hyperpolarized [1-13C]-pyruvate MRS evaluates immune potential and predicts response to radiotherapy in cervical cancer

Open Access
Radiotherapy
Original article

The environmental impact of energy consumption and carbon emissions in radiology departments: a systematic review

Open Access
Computed Tomography
Systematic review

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Springer Medicine

Quantification of breast biopsy clip marker artifact on routine breast MRI sequences: a phantom study

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Relevance statement

Key Points

Graphical Abstract

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

Investigating patellar motion using weight-bearing dynamic CT: normative values and morphological considerations for healthy volunteers

Intraindividual reproducibility of myocardial radiomic features between energy-integrating detector and photon-counting detector CT angiography

Accelerated IVIM-corrected DTI in acute hamstring injury: towards a clinically feasible acquisition time

Image annotation and curation in radiology: an overview for machine learning practitioners

Hyperpolarized [1-13C]-pyruvate MRS evaluates immune potential and predicts response to radiotherapy in cervical cancer

The environmental impact of energy consumption and carbon emissions in radiology departments: a systematic review

Keynote series | Spotlight on menopause

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Relevance statement

Key Points

Graphical Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Investigating patellar motion using weight-bearing dynamic CT: normative values and morphological considerations for healthy volunteers

Intraindividual reproducibility of myocardial radiomic features between energy-integrating detector and photon-counting detector CT angiography

Accelerated IVIM-corrected DTI in acute hamstring injury: towards a clinically feasible acquisition time

Image annotation and curation in radiology: an overview for machine learning practitioners

Hyperpolarized [1-13C]-pyruvate MRS evaluates immune potential and predicts response to radiotherapy in cervical cancer

The environmental impact of energy consumption and carbon emissions in radiology departments: a systematic review