Evaluation of multicoil breast arrays for parallel imaging.

PURPOSE: To evaluate three multicoil breast arrays for both conventional and SENSE-accelerated imaging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two commercially available 8-element coils and a prototype 16-element coil were compared. One 8-element array had adjustable coils located next to the breast tissue and the other had a fixed coil arrangement; both were designed to allow parallel imaging in the left-right direction. The 16-element coil was designed to have coil sensitivity variation in both the left-right and superior-inferior directions, and also had adjustable coils. Their performance was assessed in terms of signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), g-factor, and uniformity with a custom-built phantom. RESULTS: The 16-element array with adjustable coils provided the highest SNR, while the 8-element coil with a fixed coil arrangement had the best uniformity. All coils performed well for SENSE acceleration in the left-right direction. The 8-element coils did not have the capability for acceleration in the superior-inferior direction across the whole volume. The 16-element coil enabled acceleration in the superior-inferior direction in addition to the left-right direction. CONCLUSION: Smaller, adjustable coil elements located next to breast tissue can provide greater SNR than larger, fixed coil elements. A multicoil breast array with high intrinsic SNR and low g-factors enables high-quality parallel imaging.

Preliminary in vivo validation of a dedicated breast MRI and sonographic coregistration imaging system.

OBJECTIVE: Sonographic correlation of breast MRI findings is often challenging. We present a preliminary in vivo feasibility study evaluating the degree of error of a new MRI-sonography coregistration system for showing MRI and sonographically visible breast lesions. CONCLUSION: In 10 patients with 13 lesions, the system was found to be an accurate means for targeting sonography to MRI of the same breast lesions.

MR imaging-guided breast localization system with medial or lateral access.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the degree of error of the authors' magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-guided needle localization system for biopsy of suspicious lesions visualized only with MR imaging, by using both prospectively recorded and retrospectively reviewed data, including MR imaging lesion coordinates as the reference standard, and to determine whether any lesion or breast characteristics affect this error. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval, along with informed consent, was obtained as directed by the board. In 31 patients (age range, 34-64 years; mean age, 54.5 years), 38 wires were placed for 35 lesions by means of an MR-guided needle localization system with medial or lateral access and computer software assistance for needle placement calculation. Needle and wire placement error measurements were calculated before and after necessary placement correction, accounting for tissue shift in the z plane. The error was statistically correlated with MR imaging lesion variables, breast density, and histopathologic findings by means of univariate and multivariate linear regression analyses or two-tailed paired t test. Procedure times and the frequency of medial or lateral approaches were recorded. RESULTS: Eleven of 35 localizations (31%) were medial, and 24 of 35 (69%) were lateral. The mean total magnet time was 61.6 minutes, and the mean needle deployment time was 9 minutes (range, 4-17 minutes). Sixteen of 35 lesions (46%) were malignant (seven ductal carcinoma in situ, six invasive ductal, two invasive lobular, and one lymphoma). The mean uncorrected needle placement error was 1.3 mm (range, 0-6 mm) for the x plane, 2.4 mm (range, 0-6.5 mm) for the y plane, and 5.6 mm (range, 0-15.6 mm) for the z plane. Fourteen of 38 needles (37%) required repositioning for z-plane error. The corrected z-plane error improved to 3.2 mm (range, 0-10.0 mm). Factors that significantly increased the uncorrected error included tissue shift in the z plane (R = 0.7), small lesion size (R = -0.59), and fatty breast density (P = .029). CONCLUSION: The authors' system is accurate for performing MR-guided needle localizations for both medial and lateral approaches. Factors that increased the uncorrected needle placement error included small lesion size, fatty breast density, and tissue shift in the z plane.

Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination.

CONTEXT: Current recommendations for women who have a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation are to undergo breast surveillance from age 25 years onward with mammography annually and clinical breast examination (CBE) every 6 months; however, many tumors are detected at a relatively advanced stage. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound may improve the ability to detect breast cancer at an early stage. OBJECTIVE: To compare the sensitivity and specificity of 4 methods of breast cancer surveillance (mammography, ultrasound, MRI, and CBE) in women with hereditary susceptibility to breast cancer due to a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A surveillance study of 236 Canadian women aged 25 to 65 years with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations who underwent 1 to 3 annual screening examinations, consisting of MRI, mammography, and ultrasound at a single tertiary care teaching hospital between November 3, 1997, and March 31, 2003. On the day of imaging and at 6-month intervals, CBE was performed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of each of the 4 surveillance modalities, and sensitivity of all 4 screening modalities vs mammography and CBE. RESULTS: Each imaging modality was read independently by a radiologist and scored on a 5-point Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System scale. All lesions with a score of 4 or 5 (suspicious or highly suspicious for malignancy) were biopsied. There were 22 cancers detected (16 invasive and 6 ductal carcinoma in situ). Of these, 17 (77%) were detected by MRI vs 8 (36%) by mammography, 7 (33%) by ultrasound, and 2 (9.1%) by CBE. The sensitivity and specificity (based on biopsy rates) were 77% and 95.4% for MRI, 36% and 99.8% for mammography, 33% and 96% for ultrasound, and 9.1% and 99.3% for CBE, respectively. There was 1 interval cancer. All 4 screening modalities combined had a sensitivity of 95% vs 45% for mammography and CBE combined. CONCLUSIONS: In BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers, MRI is more sensitive for detecting breast cancers than mammography, ultrasound, or CBE alone. Whether surveillance regimens that include MRI will reduce mortality from breast cancer in high-risk women requires further investigation.