Bilateral breast MRI by use of dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation and image-based shimming at 3 Tesla: improvement in homogeneity on fat-suppression imaging

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Kinya Ishizaka (1)
  Fumi Kato (2)
  Satoshi Terae (3)
  Suzuko Mito (1)
  Noriko Oyama-Manabe (2)
  Tamotsu Kamishima (4)
  Mitsuhiro Nakanishi (5)
  Hiroyuki Sugimori (1)
  Hiroyuki Hamaguchi (1)
  Hiroki Shirato (1) (6)
  
  1. Department of Radiological Technology ; Hokkaido University Hospital ; N14 W5 ; Kita-ku ; Sapporo ; 060-8648 ; Japan
  2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology ; Hokkaido University Hospital ; N14 W5 ; Kita-ku ; Sapporo ; 060-8648 ; Japan
  3. Department of Diagnostic Radiology ; Sapporo City General Hospital ; N11 W13 ; Chuo-ku ; Sapporo ; 060-8604 ; Japan
  4. Graduate School of Health Science ; Hokkaido University ; N12 W5 ; Kita-ku ; Sapporo ; 060-0812 ; Japan
  5. Division of Radiology ; Sapporo Medical University Hospital ; S1 W17 ; Chuo-ku ; Sapporo ; 060-0061 ; Japan
  6. Department of Radiation Oncology ; Hokkaido University Hospital ; N14 W5 ; Kita-ku ; Sapporo ; 060-8648 ; Japan
  
• 关键词：Breast MRI ; Fat suppression ; Dual ; source parallel radiofrequency excitation ; Image ; based shimming ; 3 Tesla
• 刊名：Radiological Physics and Technology
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：January 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：8
• 期：1
• 页码：4-12
• 全文大小：3,353 KB
• 参考文献：1. Kuhl CK, Kooijman H, Gieseke J, et al. Effect of B1 inhomogeneity on breast MR imaging at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2007;244(3):929鈥?0. CrossRef
  2. Azlan CA, Di Giovanni P, Ahearn TS, et al. B1 transmission-field inhomogeneity and enhancement ratio errors in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) of the breast at 3T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(1):234鈥?. CrossRef
  3. Sung K, Daniel BL, Hargreaves BA. Transmit B1+ field inhomogeneity and T1 estimation errors in breast DCE-MRI at 3 tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;38(2):454鈥?. CrossRef
  4. Nelles M, Konig RS, Gieseke J, et al. Dual-source parallel RF transmission for clinical MR imaging of the spine at 3.0 T: intraindividual comparison with conventional single-source transmission. Radiology. 2010;257(3):743鈥?3. CrossRef
  5. de Kerviler E, Leroy-Willig A, Clement O, Frija J. Fat suppression techniques in MRI: an update. Biomed Pharmacother. 1998;52(2):69鈥?5. CrossRef
  6. Orel SG, Schnall MD. MR imaging of the breast for the detection, diagnosis, and staging of breast cancer. Radiology. 2001;220(1):13鈥?0. CrossRef
  7. Kuhl CK, Jost P, Morakkabati N, Zivanovic O, Schild HH, Gieseke J. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 and 1.5 T in the same patients: initial experience. Radiology. 2006;239(3):666鈥?6. CrossRef
  8. Le-Petross H, Kundra V, Szklaruk J, Wei W, Hortobagyi GN, Ma J. Fast three-dimensional dual echo dixon technique improves fat suppression in breast MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(4):889鈥?4. CrossRef
  9. Brown R, Storey P, Geppert C, et al. Breast MRI at 7 Tesla with a bilateral coil and T1-weighted acquisition with robust fat suppression: image evaluation and comparison with 3 Tesla. Eur Radiol. 2013;23(11):2969鈥?8. CrossRef
  10. Haase A, Frahm J, Hanicke W, et al. 1H NMR chemical shift selective (CHESS) imaging. Phys Med Biol. 1985;30(4):341鈥?. CrossRef
  11. Rahbar H, Partridge SC, Demartini WB, et al. Improved B1 homogeneity of 3 Tesla breast MRI using dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2012;35(5):1222鈥?. CrossRef
  12. Schar M, Kozerke S, Fischer SE, et al. Cardiac SSFP imaging at 3 Tesla. Magn Reson Med. 2004;51(4):799鈥?06. CrossRef
  13. Simonetti AW, Holthuizen R, Harder CJ, et al. 3D breast segmentation for image based shimming. Proc Int Soc Magn Reson Med. 2009;17:2114.
  14. Siegelman ES, Charafeddine R, Stolpen AH, Axel L. Suppression of intravascular signal on fat-saturated contrast-enhanced thoracic MR arteriograms. Radiology. 2000;217(1):115鈥?. CrossRef
  15. Lee J, Lustig M, Kim DH, Pauly JM. Improved shim method based on the minimization of the maximum off-resonance frequency for balanced steady-state free precession (bSSFP). Magn Reson Med. 2009;61(6):1500鈥?. CrossRef
  16. Maril N, Collins CM, Greenman RL, et al. Strategies for shimming the breast. Magn Reson Med. 2005;54(5):1139鈥?5. CrossRef
  17. Hsu JJ, Glover GH. Mitigation of susceptibility-induced signal loss in neuroimaging using localized shim coils. Magn Reson Med. 2005;53(2):243鈥?. CrossRef
  18. Takatsu Y, Nishiyama K, Miyati T, et al. A comparison of shimming techniques for optimizing fat suppression in MR mammography. Radiol Phys Technol. 2013;6(2):486鈥?1. s12194-013-0224-3" target="_blank" title="It opens in new window">CrossRef
  19. Han M, Cunningham CH, Pauly JM, et al. Homogeneous fat suppression for bilateral breast imaging using independent shims. Magn Reson Med. 2014;71(4):1511鈥?. CrossRef
  20. Bley TA, Wieben O, Francois CJ, Brittain JH, Reeder SB. Fat and water magnetic resonance imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2010;31(1):4鈥?8. CrossRef
  21. Kaldoudi E, Williams SC, Barker GJ, Tofts PS. A chemical shift selective inversion recovery sequence for fat-suppressed MRI: theory and experimental validation. Magn Reson Imaging. 1993;11(3):341鈥?5. CrossRef
  22. Glover GH. Multipoint dixon technique for water and fat proton and susceptibility imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991;1(5):521鈥?0. CrossRef
  
• 刊物主题：Imaging / Radiology; Nuclear Medicine; Radiotherapy; Medical and Radiation Physics;
• 出版者：Springer Japan
• ISSN：1865-0341

文摘

In this study, we aimed to compare fat-suppression homogeneity on breast MR imaging by using dual-source parallel radiofrequency excitation and image-based shimming (DS-IBS) with single-source radiofrequency excitation with volume shim (SS-Vol) at 3 Tesla. Twenty patients were included. Axial three-dimensional T1-weighted turbo-field-echo breast images with DS-IBS and SS-Vol were obtained. Fat suppression was scored with four grade points. The contrast of the pectoral muscle and the fat in each breast area was obtained in the head medial, head lateral, foot medial, and foot lateral areas. The axillary space was calculated and compared between DS-IBS and SS-Vol. The average DS-IBS score was significantly higher than that of SS-Vol. The mean contrasts of fat in the foot lateral areas and axillary spaces on DS-IBS images were significantly higher than on SS-Vol images.