ABSTRACT
In this study, we compared the fat-saturated (FS) and non-FS turbo spin echo (TSE) magnetic resonance imaging knee sequences reconstructed conventionally (conventional-TSE) against a deep learning-based reconstruction of accelerated TSE (DL-TSE) scans. A total of 232 conventional-TSE and DL-TSE image pairs were acquired for comparison. For each consenting patient, one of the clinically acquired conventional-TSE proton density-weighted sequences in the sagittal or coronal planes (FS and non-FS), or in the axial plane (non-FS), was repeated using a research DL-TSE sequence. The DL-TSE reconstruction resulted in an image resolution that increased by at least 45% and scan times that were up to 52% faster compared to the conventional TSE. All images were acquired on a MAGNETOM Vida 3T scanner (Siemens Healthineers AG, Erlangen, Germany). The reporting radiologists, blinded to the acquisition time, were requested to qualitatively compare the DL-TSE against the conventional-TSE reconstructions. Despite having a faster acquisition time, the DL-TSE was rated to depict smaller structures better for 139/232 (60%) cases, equivalent for 72/232 (31%) cases and worse for 21/232 (9%) cases compared to the conventional-TSE. Overall, the radiologists preferred the DL-TSE reconstruction in 124/232 (53%) cases and stated no preference, implying equivalence, for 65/232 (28%) cases. DL-TSE reconstructions enabled faster acquisition times while enhancing spatial resolution and preserving the image contrast. From these results, the DL-TSE provided added or comparable clinical value and utility in less time. DL-TSE offers the opportunity to further reduce the overall examination time and improve patient comfort with no loss in diagnostic accuracy.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Patients with breast implants need to undergo regular screening MRI procedures. One of the key requirements of this screening scan is the ability to suppress one or more tissues (water, fat, or silicone) simultaneously. However, the presence of "foreign" implants within the breast biological space affects the MRI scanner's normal operating mode. Often, this requires operator's supervision to make sure the correct image contrast is achieved. METHODS: We built a phantom that represents the commonly encountered tissues (water, fat, and silicone) in breast implant imaging. The phantom was used to optimise imaging parameters and highlight common challenges encountered while imaging breast implants. We scanned the phantom on seven different MRI scanners (including 1.5T and 3T) and produced vendor-specific cheat-sheets on how to image breast implants. Ethical approval was not required for this article type. CONCLUSION: Performing a breast MRI procedure with implants in-situ can be challenging. Employing a purpose-built phantom, we provide easy-to-use cheat sheets, with examples, outlining steps that can be taken to ensure appropriate tissue suppression and image contrast in breast implant MRI. We hope these cheat-sheets will help MRI practitioners to confidently and efficiently achieve accurate image contrasts across a number of implant scenarios which will aid in improving diagnostic accuracy, treatment plans, and thus prognosis for the patient.
