Back to the list
Congress: ECR24
Poster Number: C-21969
Type: EPOS Radiologist (scientific)
Authorblock: C. Kremser1, L. Gruber1, M. Dietzel2, B. m. Amort1, M. Daniaux1; 1Innsbruck/AT, 2Erlangen/DE
Disclosures:
Christian Kremser: Nothing to disclose
Leonhard Gruber: Nothing to disclose
Matthias Dietzel: Nothing to disclose
Birgit maria Amort: Nothing to disclose
Martin Daniaux: Nothing to disclose
Keywords: Breast, MR, Biopsy, Artifacts
Purpose Breast cancer is one of the leading causes of cancer death among women in industrialized countries [1].  To ensure successful treatment early detection and diagnosis are important, which conventionally is performed using x-ray mammography and sonography. Due to the limited sensitivity and specificity of these methods particularly in patients with dense breast parenchyma or postsurgical scars, breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become a valuable tool in the management of selected breast cancer patients [2-4].To investigate the artifact sizes of...
Read more Methods and materials Using a 1.5T and 3T whole body MR scanner (Magnetom AvantoFit and Magnetom Skyra, Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) with an 18-channel breast coil artifact sizes of the four breast biopsy markers were measured in an agarose gel phantom using T2-weighted fast spin-echo imaging with short TI inversion recovery fat suppression and magnitude reconstruction (T2-TIRM), T1-weighted spoiled gradient echo sequence with fat suppression (T1_FL3D) routinely used for dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging and diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) including a readout segmented echo-planar imaging (RESOLVE-DWI)...
Read more Results Overall, artifacts were larger on 3T than 1.5T and sequence-reliant. Artifacts were most pronounced on DWI and FL_3D sequences, least pronounced on T2 TIRM with TV and BU producing largest artifacts across all sequences.Artifact size ranged from 5.7mm x 8.5 mm to 13.4mm x 17.7mm (area between 40.3mm2 to 188mm2) at 1.5T and 6.6mm x 8.2mm to 17.7mm x 20.7mm (area between 45.3mm2 to 306mm2) at 3T. The intra-rater agreement for the obtained artifact was high, with an ICC for...
Read more Conclusion Breast clip marker artifact appearances depend on the clip type, field strength and sequence and may reach a significant size [5], potentially obscuring smaller lesions and hindering accurate assessment of breast tumors on MRI (Fig. 6). This is especially important in the initial staging and assessment of neoadjuvant treatment response. [fig 6]  
Read more References [1] Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A (2022) Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 72:7–33. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21708[2] Pediconi F, Catalano C, Occhiato R, et al (2005) Breast lesion detection and characterization at contrast-enhanced MR mammography: Gadobenate dimeglumine versus gadopentetate dimeglumine. Radiology 237:45–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2371041369[3] Lalonde L, David J, Trop I (2005) Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Breast: Current Indications[4] Gao Y, Reig B, Heacock L, et al (2021) Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Screening of Breast Cancer. Radiol Clin North Am...
Read more
GALLERY