Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022. Vol. 67. № 5
DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2022-67-5-69-74
K.S. Anpilogova1, V.M. Puchnin2, G.E. Trufanov1, A.Yu. Efimtsev1,
V.A. Fokin1, A.V. Shchelokova2, A.E. Andreichenko2,3,
T.M. Bobrovskaya3
INVESTIGATION OF THE DIAGNOSTIC QUALITY OF BREAST MRI USING INNOVATIVE WIRELESS COILS
1 V.A. Almazov National Medical Research Centre, St. Petersburg, Russia
2 National Research University ITMO, Faculty of Physics and Technology, St. Petersburg, Russia
3 Scientific and Practical Clinical Center for Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies of the Department of Health of Moscow, Russia
Contact person: Anpilogova K.S.: email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ABSTRACT
Purpose Determination of the diagnostic capabilities of metadevices for breast MR examination in women.
Material and methods In the study, two types of metadevices for examining the mammary glands were considered – for imaging in a field with magnetic induction of 3 T and 1.5 T. 11 healthy women of reproductive age were examined, magnetic resonance images of T1 (turbo spin echo) and T1 3D gradient echo (GRE) were obtained based on the Dixon method with fat saturation. The images were evaluated by radiologists on a 5-point Likert scale.
Results The images obtained using the metadevices were characterized by acceptable and comparable absolute and relative signal-to-noise ratios comparing them to images obtained using a standard coil at the same spatial resolution and with a decrease in input power by an average of 27 times for 3.0 T. At the same time, for 1.5 T, the input power was reduced by a factor of 15.6, and the signal-to-noise ratio was increased by a factor of 2. For image quality criteria in terms of presence/absence of artifacts, the average score for the metadevice was higher than the score for the specialized coil by 3 T. For 1.5 T, this parameter turned out to be the same, which was probably associated with a lower level of artifacts by 1.5 T than by 3 T in general.
Discussion Analysis of the collected assessments of independent experts indicates that the diagnostic characteristics of magnetic resonance images of the mammary glands obtained using ceramic-based (for 3 T) and wire-based (for 1.5 T) metadevices are of a good and average level, and are comparable in terms of all criteria with standard approaches.
Conclusions The assessment of the quality of the obtained images demonstrates the acceptable quality of imaging and reflects the possibility of their application in clinical practice, taking into account ongoing improvements and optimization of the entire set of pulse sequences for MRI of the mammary glands.
Keywords: magnetic resonance imaging, MR mammography, metadevice, image quality
For citation: Anpilogova KS, Puchnin VM, Trufanov GE, Efimtsev AYu, Fokin VA, Shchelokova AV, Andreichenko AE, Bobrovskaya TM. Investigation of the Diagnostic Quality of Breast MRI Using Innovative Wireless Coils. Medical Radiology and Radiation Safety. 2022;67(5):69-74. DOI: 10.33266/1024-6177-2022-67-5-69-74
References
1. Ageyeva L.I., Aleksandrova G.A., Zaychenko N.M., et.al. Zdravookhraneniye v Rossii. 2019 = Health Care in Russia. 2019. Moscow Publ., 2019. 170 p. (In Russ.).
2. Zakharova N.A., Semiglazov V.F., Duffy S.W. Skrining Raka Molochnoy Zhelezy: Problemy i Resheniya = Breast Cancer Screening: Problems and Solutions. Moscow, GEOTAR-Media Publ., 2011. 176 p. (In Russ.).
3. Serebryakova S.V., Trufanov G.Ye., Yukhno Ye.A. Magnetic Resonance Semiotics of Breast Cancer. Opukholi Zhenskoy Reproduktivnoy Sistemy = Tumors of Female Reproductive System. 2009;3-4:20-25 (In Russ.).
4. Bakker M.F., de Lange S.V., Pijnappel R.M., et al. Supplemental MRI Screening for Women with Extremely Dense Breast Tissue. New England Journal of Medicine. 2019;381;22:2091-2102.
5. Aleksandrova L.M., Kalinina A.M., Ipatov P.V., et al. Detection of Breast Cancer: State of the Problem, Solutions. Onkologiya. Zhurnal im. P.A. Gertsena = P.A. Herzen Journal of Oncology. 2016;5;2:34-39 (In Russ.).
6. Gao Y., Reig B., Heacock L., et al. Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer. Radiologic Clinics. 2021;59;1:85-98. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.09.004.
7. Chiarelli A.M., Blackmore K.M., Muradali D., et al. Performance Measures of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Plus Mammography in the High Risk Ontario Breast Screening Program. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2020;112;2:136-144.
8. Onishi N., Sadinski M., Hughes M.C., et al. Ultrafast Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Breast MRI May Generate Prognostic Imaging Markers of Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Research. 2020;22;1:1-13. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-020-01292-9.
9. Saadatmand S., Geuzinge H.A., Rutgers E.J., et al. MRI Versus Mammography for Breast Cancer Screening in Women with Familial Risk (FaMRIsc): a Multicentre, Randomised, Controlled Trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2019;20;8:1136-1147. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(19)30275-X.
10. Strigel R.M., Rollenhagen J., Burnside E.S., et al. Screening Breast MRI Outcomes in Routine Clinical Practice: Comparison to BI-RADS Benchmarks. Academic Radiology. 2017;24;4:411-417.
11. Lehman C.D., Lee J.M., DeMartini W.B., et al. Screening MRI in Women with a Personal History of Breast Cance. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2016;108;3:djv349.
12. Clauser P., Dietzel M., Weber M., et al. Motion Artifacts, Lesion Type, and Parenchymal Enhancement in Breast MRI: what Does Really Influence Diagnostic Accuracy? Acta Radiologica. 2019;60;1:19-27. DOI: 10.1177/0284185118770918.
13. Shchelokova A., Ivanov V., Mikhailovskaya A., et al. Ceramic Resonators for Targeted Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast. Nature Communications. 2020;11;1:1-7.
14. Ivanov V., Shchelokova A., Andreychenko A., Slobozhanyuk A. Coupled Very-High Permittivity Dielectric Resonators for Clinical MRI. Applied Physics Letters. 2020;117;10:103701.
15. Puchnin V., Solomakha G., Nikulin A., et al. Metamaterial Inspired Wireless Coil for Clinical Breast Imaging. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2021;322:106877.
16. Bickelhaupt S., Laun F.B., Tesdorff J., et al. Fast and Noninvasive Characterization of Suspicious Lesions Detected at Breast Cancer X-Ray Screening: Capability of Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging with MIPs. Radiology. 2016;278;3:689-697.
17. Zhang S., Seiler S., Wang X., et al. CEST-Dixon for Human Breast Cancer Characterization at 3T: a Preliminary Study. Magnetic Resonance in Medicine. 2018;80;3:895-903.
18. Sánchez-González J., Luna A. Diffusion MRI Outside the Brain: A Case-Based Review and Clinical Applications / Eds Luna A., Ribes R., Soto J.A. Springer Science & Business Media, 2011. P. 51–72.
19. Vinogradov E., Sherry A.D., Lenkinski R.E. CEST: from Basic Principles to Applications, Challenges and Opportunities. Journal of Magnetic Resonance. 2013;229:155-172.
PDF (RUS) Full-text article (in Russian)
Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Financing. The Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 18-75-1008).
Contribution. Article was prepared with equal participation of the authors.
Article received: 17.04.2022. Accepted for publication: 06.05.2022