Effect of Phase Encoding Direction on Image Quality in Single-Shot EPI Diffusion-Weighted Imaging of the Breast.
DWI
anterior-posterior phase encoding direction
breast
breast phantom
Journal
Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI
ISSN: 1522-2586
Titre abrégé: J Magn Reson Imaging
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9105850
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Feb 2024
28 Feb 2024
Historique:
revised:
05
02
2024
received:
03
10
2023
accepted:
05
02
2024
medline:
29
2
2024
pubmed:
29
2
2024
entrez:
28
2
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), distortion and physiologic artifacts affect clinical interpretation. Image quality can be optimized by addressing the effect of phase encoding (PE) direction on these artifacts. To compare distortion artifacts in breast DWI acquired with different PE directions and polarities, and to discuss their clinical implications. Prospective. Eleven healthy volunteers (median age: 47 years old; range: 22-74 years old) and a breast phantom. Single-shot echo planar DWI and three-dimensional fast gradient echo sequences at 3 T. All DWI data were acquired with left-right, right-left, posterior-anterior, and anterior-posterior PE directions. In phantom data, displacement magnitude was evaluated by comparing the location of landmarks in anatomical and DWI images. Three breast radiologists (5, 17, and 23 years of experience) assessed the presence or absence of physiologic artifacts in volunteers' DWI datasets and indicated their PE-direction preference. Analysis of variance with post-hoc tests were used to assess differences in displacement magnitude across DWI datasets and observers. A binomial test and a chi-squared test were used to evaluate if each in vivo DWI dataset had an equal probability (25%) of being preferred by radiologists. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using Gwet's AC1 agreement coefficient. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. In the phantom study, median displacement was the significantly largest in posterior-anterior data. While the displacement in the anterior-posterior and left-right data were equivalent (P = 0.545). In the in vivo data, there were no physiological artifacts observed in any dataset, regardless of PE direction. In the reader study, there was a significant preference for the posterior-anterior datasets which were selected 94% of the time. There was good agreement between readers (0.936). This study showed the impact of PE direction on distortion artifacts in breast DWI. In healthy volunteers, the posterior-to-anterior PE direction was preferred by readers. 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In breast diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), distortion and physiologic artifacts affect clinical interpretation. Image quality can be optimized by addressing the effect of phase encoding (PE) direction on these artifacts.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
To compare distortion artifacts in breast DWI acquired with different PE directions and polarities, and to discuss their clinical implications.
STUDY TYPE
METHODS
Prospective.
POPULATION
METHODS
Eleven healthy volunteers (median age: 47 years old; range: 22-74 years old) and a breast phantom.
FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE
UNASSIGNED
Single-shot echo planar DWI and three-dimensional fast gradient echo sequences at 3 T.
ASSESSMENT
RESULTS
All DWI data were acquired with left-right, right-left, posterior-anterior, and anterior-posterior PE directions. In phantom data, displacement magnitude was evaluated by comparing the location of landmarks in anatomical and DWI images. Three breast radiologists (5, 17, and 23 years of experience) assessed the presence or absence of physiologic artifacts in volunteers' DWI datasets and indicated their PE-direction preference.
STATISTICAL TESTS
METHODS
Analysis of variance with post-hoc tests were used to assess differences in displacement magnitude across DWI datasets and observers. A binomial test and a chi-squared test were used to evaluate if each in vivo DWI dataset had an equal probability (25%) of being preferred by radiologists. Inter-reader agreement was evaluated using Gwet's AC1 agreement coefficient. A P-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the phantom study, median displacement was the significantly largest in posterior-anterior data. While the displacement in the anterior-posterior and left-right data were equivalent (P = 0.545). In the in vivo data, there were no physiological artifacts observed in any dataset, regardless of PE direction. In the reader study, there was a significant preference for the posterior-anterior datasets which were selected 94% of the time. There was good agreement between readers (0.936).
DATA CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
This study showed the impact of PE direction on distortion artifacts in breast DWI. In healthy volunteers, the posterior-to-anterior PE direction was preferred by readers.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
METHODS
2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY: Stage 1.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : GE Healthcare
Organisme : Krueger v. Wyeth Cy Pres Settlement Funds
Informations de copyright
© 2024 International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine.
Références
Shi RY, Yao QY, Wu LM, Xu JR. Breast lesions: Diagnosis using diffusion weighted imaging at 1.5T and 3.0T-systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Breast Cancer 2018;18(3):e305-e320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2017.06.011.
Gao Y, Reig B, Heacock L, Bennett DL, Heller SL, Moy L. Magnetic resonance imaging in screening of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2021;59(1):85-98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.004.
Woodhams R, Ramadan S, Stanwell P, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: Principles and clinical applications. Radiographics 2011;31(4):1059-1084. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.314105160.
Guo Y, Cai YQ, Cai ZL, et al. Differentiation of clinically benign and malignant breast lesions using diffusion-weighted imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2002;16(2):172-178. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.10140.
Woodhams R, Matsunaga K, Iwabuchi K, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of malignant breast tumors: The usefulness of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value and ADC map for the detection of malignant breast tumors and evaluation of cancer extension. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29(5):644-649. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.rct.0000171913.74086.1b.
Kim SH, Cha ES, Kim HS, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of breast cancer: Correlation of the apparent diffusion coefficient value with prognostic factors. J Magn Reson Imaging 2009;30(3):615-620. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21884.
Partridge SC, Zhang Z, Newitt DC, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI findings predict pathologic response in neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer: The ACRIN 6698 multicenter trial. Radiology 2018;289(3):618-627. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180273.
Gullo RL, Partridge SC, Shin HJ, Thakur SB, Pinker K. Update on DWI for breast cancer diagnosis and treatment monitoring. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2023;222(1):e2329933. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.23.29933.
Hendrick RE. High-quality breast MRI. Radiol Clin North Am 2014;52(3):547-562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2013.12.002.
Partridge SC, McDonald ES. Diffusion weighted magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Protocol optimization, interpretation, and clinical applications. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013;21(3):601-624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mric.2013.04.007.
Brown RW, Cheng Y-CN, Haacke EM, Thompson MR, Venkatesan R. Magnetic field inhomogeneity effects and T2* dephasing. Magnetic resonance imaging: Physical principles and sequence design. Second ed. New York, NY, USA, John Wiley & Sons, 2014. p 569-617.
Rodriguez-Soto AE, Fang LK, Holland D, et al. Correction of artifacts induced by B(0) inhomogeneities in breast MRI using reduced-field-of-view echo-planar imaging and enhanced reversed polarity gradient method. J Magn Reson Imaging 2021;53(5):1581-1591. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.27566.
Li W, Le NN, Onishi N, et al. Diffusion-weighted MRI for predicting pathologic complete response in neoadjuvant immunotherapy. Cancers (Basel) 2022;14(18):4436-4447. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14184436.
Newitt DC, Zhang Z, Gibbs JE, et al. Test-retest repeatability and reproducibility of ADC measures by breast DWI: Results from the ACRIN 6698 trial. J Magn Reson Imaging 2019;49(6):1617-1628. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26539.
Hancu I, Lee SK, Hulsey K, et al. Distortion correction in diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast: Performance assessment of prospective, retrospective, and combined (prospective + retrospective) approaches. Magn Reson Med 2017;78(1):247-253. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26328.
Lee SK, Tan ET, Govenkar A, Hancu I. Dynamic slice-dependent shim and center frequency update in 3 T breast diffusion weighted imaging. Magn Reson Med 2014;71(5):1813-1818. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.24824.
McKay JA, Church AL, Rubin N, et al. A comparison of methods for high-spatial-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging in breast MRI. Radiology 2020;297(2):304-312. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020200221.
Taviani V, Alley MT, Banerjee S, et al. High-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast with multiband 2D radiofrequency pulses and a generalized parallel imaging reconstruction. Magn Reson Med 2017;77(1):209-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.26110.
Bogner W, Pinker-Domenig K, Bickel H, et al. Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging improves the diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR breast examinations at 3.0 T. Radiology 2012;263(1):64-76. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111494.
Kim YJ, Kim SH, Kang BJ, et al. Readout-segmented echo-planar imaging in diffusion-weighted mr imaging in breast cancer: Comparison with single-shot echo-planar imaging in image quality. Korean J Radiol 2014;15(4):403-410. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2014.15.4.403.
Sun L, Olsen JO, Robitaille PM. Design and optimization of a breast coil for magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging 1993;11(1):73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0730-725x(93)90414-9.
Yitta S, Joe BN, Wisner DJ, Price ER, Hylton NM. Recognizing artifacts and optimizing breast MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013;200(6):W673-W682. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.10013.
Konyer NB, Ramsay EA, Bronskill MJ, Plewes DB. Comparison of MR imaging breast coils. Radiology 2002;222(3):830-834. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2223001310.
Yeh ED, Georgian-Smith D, Raza S, Bussolari L, Pawlisz-Hoff J, Birdwell RL. Positioning in breast MR imaging to optimize image quality. Radiographics 2014;34(1):E1-E17. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.341125193.
Tamura T, Murakami S, Naito K, Yamada T, Fujimoto T, Kikkawa T. Investigation of the optimal b-value to detect breast tumors with diffusion weighted imaging by 1.5-T MRI. Cancer Imaging 2014;14(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1470-7330-14-11.
Sauer ST, Christner SA, Schlaiß T, et al. Diffusion-weighted breast MRI at 3 Tesla: Improved lesion visibility and image quality with a combination of water-excitation and spectral fat saturation. Acad Radiol 2023;30(9):1773-1783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.01.014.
Miyazaki M, Wheaton A, Kitane S. Enhanced fat suppression technique for breast imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2013;38(4):981-986. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23932.
Takatsu Y, Kyotani K, Ueyama T, Miyati T, Yamamura K, Andou A. Assessment of the quality of breast MR imaging using the modified Dixon method and frequency-selective fat suppression: A phantom study. Magn Reson Med Sci 2018;17(4):350-355. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.tn.2017-0144.
Keenan KE, Wilmes LJ, Aliu SO, et al. Design of a breast phantom for quantitative MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44(3):610-619. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25214.
Gwet KL. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Gaithersburgh, MD: StatAxis Publishing Company; 2001.
Glover GH, Mueller BA, Turner JA, et al. Function biomedical informatics research network recommendations for prospective multicenter functional MRI studies. J Magn Reson Imaging 2012;36(1):39-54. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.23572.
Andersson JL, Skare S, Ashburner J. How to correct susceptibility distortions in spin-echo echo-planar images: Application to diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimage 2003;20(2):870-888. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-8119(03)00336-7.
Holland D, Kuperman JM, Dale AM. Efficient correction of inhomogeneous static magnetic field-induced distortion in echo planar imaging. Neuroimage 2010;50(1):175-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.11.044.
Zhao Y, Li Y, Jiang L, Fu K, Xie H, Ran Q. Effect of the phase encoding direction on the image quality of breast diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance images. Res Sq 2023. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2758615/v1.
Baltzer PAT, Bickel H, Spick C, et al. Potential of noncontrast magnetic resonance imaging with diffusion-weighted imaging in characterization of breast lesions: Intraindividual comparison with dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Invest Radiol 2018;53(4):229-235. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0000000000000433.
Fang LK, Keenan KE, Carl M, Ojeda-Fournier H, Rodriguez-Soto AE, Rakow-Penner RA. Apparent diffusion coefficient reproducibility across 3 T scanners in a breast diffusion phantom. J Magn Reson Imaging 2023;57(3):812-823. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.28355.
Keenan KE, Peskin AP, Wilmes LJ, et al. Variability and bias assessment in breast ADC measurement across multiple systems. J Magn Reson Imaging 2016;44(4):846-855. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.25237.