Premium
Simultaneous Multislice Readout‐Segmented Echo Planar Imaging for Diffusion‐Weighted MRI in Patients With Invasive Breast Cancers
Author(s) -
Song Sung Eun,
Woo Ok Hee,
Cho Kyu Ran,
Seo Bo Kyoung,
Son Yo Han,
Grimm Robert,
Liu Wei,
Moon Woo Kyung
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
journal of magnetic resonance imaging
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.563
H-Index - 160
eISSN - 1522-2586
pISSN - 1053-1807
DOI - 10.1002/jmri.27433
Subject(s) - nuclear medicine , effective diffusion coefficient , medicine , breast mri , multislice , echo planar imaging , diffusion mri , magnetic resonance imaging , image quality , contrast to noise ratio , breast cancer , nuclear magnetic resonance , radiology , mammography , physics , cancer , computer science , artificial intelligence , image (mathematics)
Background In diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) of breast MRI, simultaneous multislice acceleration techniques can be used for readout‐segmented echo planar imaging (rs‐EPI) to shorten the scan time. Purpose To compare the image quality, apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value, and scan time of rs‐EPI and simultaneous multislice rs‐EPI (SMS rs‐EPI) sequences. Study Type Retrospective. Subjects In all, 134 consecutive women (mean age: 55.3 years) with invasive breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI. Field Strength/ Sequences 3.0T; rs‐EPI sequence, prototypic SMS rs‐EPI sequence and dynamic contrast‐enhanced MRI ( DCE‐MRI ) sequence Assessment For quantitative comparison, two radiologists independently measured the signal‐to‐noise ratio (SNR), contrast‐to‐noise ratio (CNR), lesion contrast, and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC). For qualitative comparison, image quality, lesion conspicuity, and reader preference were assessed with a reference of DCE‐MRI. Statistical Tests Paired t ‐tests and Mann–Whitney tests were used. Results For SNR and CNR, there were no differences between the sequences ( P = 0.342 and 0.665 for reader 1; P = 0.606 and P = 0.116 for reader 2). Lesion contrast of SMS rs‐EPI was higher than that of rs‐EPI ( P < 0.05 for both reader 1 and reader 2). Mean tumor ADC was similar in rs‐EPI and SMS rs‐EPI sequences (0.98 ± 0.22 vs. 1.00 ± 0.22; P = 0.291 for reader 1, 0.98 ± 0.21 vs. 1.00 ± 0.22; P = 0.418 for reader 2). Regarding qualitative comparison, image quality and lesion conspicuity were higher in SMS rs‐EPI than in rs‐EPI (both P < 0.05 for both readers). The two readers regarded SMS rs‐EPI as superior or equal to rs‐EPI in over 90% of cases. The acquisition time was 4:30 minutes for rs‐EPI and 2:31 minutes for SMS rs‐EPI. Data Conclusion The SMS rs‐EPI sequence resulted in a similar ADC value and better image quality than the rs‐EPI sequence in a 44.1% reduced scan time. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy 3