Top

Published in:

01-04-2018 | MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Short tau inversion recovery in breast diffusion-weighted imaging: signal-to-noise ratio and apparent diffusion coefficients using a breast phantom in comparison with spectral attenuated inversion recovery

Authors: Tsukasa Yoshida, Atsushi Urikura, Kensei Shirata, Yoshihiro Nakaya, Masahiro Endo, Shingo Terashima, Yoichiro Hosokawa

Published in: La radiologia medica | Issue 4/2018

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to compare the signal-to-noise ratios (SNRs) and apparent diffusion coefficients (ADCs) obtained using two fat suppression techniques in breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of a phantom.

Materials and methods

The breast phantom comprised agar gels with four different concentrations of granulated sugar (samples 1, 2, 3, and 4). DWI with short tau inversion recovery (STIR-DWI) and that with spectral attenuated inversion recovery (SPAIR-DWI) were performed using 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging, and the obtained SNRs and ADCs were compared. ADCs were also compared between the right and left breast phantoms.

Results

For samples 3 and 4, SNRs obtained using STIR-DWI were lower than those obtained using SPAIR-DWI. For samples 2, 3, and 4, overall ADCs obtained using STIR-DWI were significantly higher than those obtained using SPAIR-DWI (p < 0.001 for all), although no significant difference was observed for sample 1 (p = 0.62). STIR-DWI shows a positive bias and wide limits of agreement in Bland–Altman plot. The coefficients of variance of overall ADCs were good in STIR-DWI and SPAIR-DWI. For all samples, STIR-DWI demonstrated slightly larger percentage differences in ADCs between the right and left phantoms than SPAIR-DWI.

Conclusion

SNRs and ADCs obtained using STIR-DWI are influenced by the T ₁ value; a shorter T ₁ value decreases SNRs, overestimates ADCs, and induces the measurement error in ADCs. STIR-DWI showed a larger difference in ADCs between the right and left phantoms than SPAIR-DWI.

Yabuuchi H, Matsuo Y, Okafuji T, Kamitani T, Soeda H, Setoguchi T, Sakai S, Hatakenaka M, Kubo M, Sadanaga N, Yamamoto H (2009) Enhanced mass on contrast-enhanced breast MR imaging: lesion characterization using combination of dynamic contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR images. J Magn Reson Imaging 28:1157–1165CrossRef

Zhang L, Tang M, Min Z, Lu J, Lei X, Zhang X (2016) Accuracy of combined dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and diffusion-weighted imaging for breast cancer detection: a meta-analysis. Acta Radiol 57:651–660CrossRefPubMed

Lo GG, Ai V, Chan JK, Li KW, Cheung PS, Wong TT, Ma M, Lee R, Chien D (2009) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions: first experiences at 3 T. J Comput Assist Tomogr 33:63–69CrossRefPubMed

Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, Gao YG, An NY, Ma L, Mahankali S, Gao JH (2002) Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 16:172–178CrossRefPubMed

Nogueira L, Brandao S, Matos E, Nunes RG, Ferreira HA, Loureiro J, Ramos I (2014) Diffusion-weighted breast imaging at 3 T: preliminary experience. Clin Radiol 69:378–384CrossRefPubMed

Richard R, Thomassin I, Chapellier M, Scemama A, de Cremoux P, Varna M, Giacchetti S, Espié M, de Kerviler E, de Bazelaire C (2013) Diffusion-weighted MRI in pretreatment prediction of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 23:2420–2431CrossRefPubMed

Subhawong TK, Jacobs MA, Fayad LM (2014) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging for characterizing musculoskeletal lesions. Radiographics 34:1163–1177CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Delfaut EM, Beltran J, Johnson G, Rousseau J, Marchandise X, Cotten A (1999) Fat suppression in MR imaging: techniques and pitfalls. Radiographics 19:373–382CrossRefPubMed

Lin C, Rogers CD, Majidi S (2015) Fat suppression techniques in breast magnetic resonance imaging: a critical comparison and state of the art. Rep Med Imaging 2015:37–49CrossRef

10.

Mürtz P, Tsesarskiy M, Kowal A, Träber F, Gieseke J, Willinek WA, Leutner CC, Schmiedel A, Schild HH (2014) Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging of breast lesions: the influence of different fat-suppression techniques on quantitative measurements and their reproducibility. Eur Radiol 24:2540–2551CrossRefPubMed

11.

Stadlbauer A, Bernt R, Gruber S, Bogner W, Pinker K, van der Riet W, Haller J, Salomonowitz E (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) for the diagnosis of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur Radiol 19:2349–2356CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ouyang Z, Ouyang Y, Zhu M, Lu Y, Zhang Z, Shi J, Li X, Ren G (2014) Diffusion-weighted imaging with fat suppression using short-tau inversion recovery: clinical utility for diagnosis of breast lesions. Clin Radiol 69:e337–e344CrossRefPubMed

13.

Nogueira L, Brandão S, Nunes RG, Ferreira HA, Loureiro J, Ramos I (2015) Breast DWI at 3 T: influence of the fat-suppression technique on image quality and diagnostic performance. Clin Radiol 70:286–294CrossRefPubMed

14.

Brandão S, Nogueira L, Matos E, Nunes RG, Ferreira HA, Loureiro J, Ramos I (2015) Fat suppression techniques (STIR vs. SPAIR) on diffusion-weighted imaging of breast lesions at 3.0 T: preliminary experience. Radiol Med 120:705–713CrossRefPubMed

15.

Norris DG (2001) Implications of bulk motion for diffusion-weighted imaging experiments: effects, mechanisms, and solutions. J Magn Reson Imaging 13:486–495CrossRefPubMed

16.

Yoshida T, Urikura A, Shirata K, Nakaya Y, Terashima S, Hosokawa Y (2016) Image quality assessment of single-shot turbo spin echo diffusion-weighted imaging with parallel imaging technique: a phantom study. Br J Radiol 89:20160512CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Celik A (2016) Effect of imaging parameters on the accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient and optimization strategies. Diagn Interv Radiol 22:101–107CrossRefPubMed

18.

Bogner W, Gruber S, Pinker K, Grabner G, Stadlbauer A, Weber M, Moser E (2009) Diffusion-weighted MR for differentiation of breast lesions at 3.0 T: how does selection of diffusion protocols affect diagnosis? Radiology 253:341–351CrossRefPubMed

19.

Malyarenko D, Galbán CJ, Londy FJ, Meyer CR, Johnson TD, Rehemtulla A, Ross BD, Chenevert TL (2013) Multi-system repeatability and reproducibility of apparent diffusion coefficient measurement using an ice-water phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 37:1238–1246CrossRefPubMed

20.

Hancu I, Govenkar A, Lenkinski RE, Lee SK (2013) On shimming approaches in 3T breast MRI. Magn Reson Med 69:862–867CrossRefPubMed

21.

Price RR, Axel L, Morgan T, Newman R, Perman W, Schneiders N, Selikson M, Wood M, Thomas SR (1990) Quality assurance methods and phantoms for magnetic resonance imaging: report of AAPM nuclear magnetic resonance Task Group No. 1. Med Phys 17:287–295CrossRefPubMed

22.

Bland JM, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327:307–310CrossRef

23.

Thomassin-Naggara I, De Bazelaire C, Chopier J, Bazot M, Marsault C, Trop I (2013) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the breast: advantages and pitfalls. Eur J Radiol 82:435–443CrossRefPubMed

24.

Pereira FP, Martins G, de Oliveira RD (2011) Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 19:95–110CrossRefPubMed

25.

Moschetta M, Telegrafo M, Rella L, Ianora AA, Angelelli G (2014) Effect of gadolinium injection on diffusion-weighted imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) imaging of breast lesions. Magn Reson Imaging 32:1242–1246CrossRefPubMed

26.

Edden RA, Smith SA, Barker PB (2010) Longitudinal and multi-echo transverse relaxation times of normal breast tissue at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging 32:982–987CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Giannotti E, Waugh S, Priba L, Davis Z, Crowe E, Vinnicombe S (2015) Assessment and quantification of sources of variability in breast apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurements at diffusion weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol 84:1729–1736CrossRefPubMed

28.

Zhao J, Guan H, Li M, Gu H, Qin J, Wu X (2016) Significance of the ADC ratio in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions. Acta Radiol 57:422–429CrossRefPubMed

Title: Short tau inversion recovery in breast diffusion-weighted imaging: signal-to-noise ratio and apparent diffusion coefficients using a breast phantom in comparison with spectral attenuated inversion recovery
Authors: Tsukasa Yoshida
Atsushi Urikura
Kensei Shirata
Yoshihiro Nakaya
Masahiro Endo
Shingo Terashima
Yoichiro Hosokawa
Publication date: 01-04-2018
Publisher: Springer Milan
Published in: La radiologia medica / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 0033-8362
Electronic ISSN: 1826-6983
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11547-017-0840-9

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Short tau inversion recovery in breast diffusion-weighted imaging: signal-to-noise ratio and apparent diffusion coefficients using a breast phantom in comparison with spectral attenuated inversion recovery

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Concordance between fine-needle aspiration and core biopsies for osseous lesions by lesion imaging appearance and CT attenuation

Fractal-based radiomic approach to predict complete pathological response after chemo-radiotherapy in rectal cancer

Structured reporting for fibrosing lung disease: a model shared by radiologist and pulmonologist

Distinguishing benign from malignant thyroid nodules using thyroid ultrasonography: utility of adding superb microvascular imaging and elastography

Interventional therapeutic procedures in the musculoskeletal system: an Italian Survey by the Italian College of Musculoskeletal Radiology

Organ doses and lifetime attributable risk evaluations for scoliosis examinations of adolescent patients with the EOS imaging system