These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of simultaneous multi-slice single-shot DWI to readout-segmented DWI for evaluation of breast lesions at 3T MRI.
    Author: Sanderink WBG, Teuwen J, Appelman L, Moy L, Heacock L, Weiland E, Karssemeijer N, Baltzer PAT, Sechopoulos I, Mann RM.
    Journal: Eur J Radiol; 2021 May; 138():109626. PubMed ID: 33711569.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare diffusion-weighted imaging of the breast performed with a conventional readout-segmented echo-planar imaging (rs-EPI) sequence to when using a prototype simultaneous multi-slice single-shot EPI (SMS-ss-EPI) acquisition. METHOD: From September 2017 to December 2018, 26 women with histologically proven breast cancer were scanned with the conventional rs-EPI and the SMS-ss-EPI at 3 T during the same imaging examination. Four breast radiologists (4-13 years of experience) independently scored both acquired series of 25 women (one case was used for training) for overall image quality (1: extremely poor to 9: excellent) and artifacts (1: very disturbing to 5: not present). All lesions (n = 52; 40 malignant, 12 benign) were also evaluated for visibility (1: not visible, 2: visible if location is given, 3: visible). In addition, lesion characteristics were rated, and a BI-RADS score was given. Results were analyzed using visual grading characteristics and the resulting area under the curve (AUCVGC), weighted kappa, McNemar test, and dependent-samples t-test when appropriate. RESULTS: Overall, radiologists significantly preferred the image quality in rs-EPI over that of SMS-ss-EPI (AUCVGC: 0.698, P = 0.002). Infolding and ghosting, and distortion artifacts were significantly less apparent in the rs-EPI (AUCVGC: 0.660, P = 0.022 and AUCVGC: 0.700 P = 0.002, respectively). Lesions were, however, significantly better visible on the SMS-ss-EPI images (AUCVGC: 0.427, P = 0.016). Malignant lesions had significantly higher visibility with SMS-ss-EPI (P = 0.035). Sensitivity and specificity were comparable between both sequences (P = 0.760 and P = 0.549, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the perceived lower image quality and the increased presence of artifacts in the SMS-ss-EPI sequence, malignant lesions are better visualized using this sequence.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]