Comparisons of Hepatobiliary Phase Imaging Using Combinations of Parallel Imaging and Variable Degrees of Compressed Sensing With Use of Parallel Imaging Alone.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the image quality in the hepatobiliary phase images of gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging using parallel imaging (PI) and compressed sensing (CS) reconstruction, using variable CS factors with the standard method using the PI technique. METHODS: In this study, 64 patients who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver magnetic resonance imaging at 3.0 T were enrolled. Hepatobiliary phase images were acquired 6 times using liver acquisition with volume acceleration (LAVA) and CS reconstruction with 5 CS factors 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, and 2.5 (LAVA-CS 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, and 2.5) and standard LAVA (LAVA-noCS). For objective analysis, the signal intensity ratios (SIRs) of the liver-to-spleen (SIR liver/spleen ), liver-to-portal vein (SIR liver/portal vein ), and liver-to-fat (SIR liver/fat ) were estimated. For subjective analysis, 2 radiologists independently evaluated the quality of all the images. RESULTS: The objective analysis demonstrated no significant difference in all evaluation parameters of all the images. Subjective analysis revealed that the scores of all evaluation items were higher for LAVA-noCS images than for LAVA-CS images, and only LAVA-CS 1.4 did not significantly differ from LAVA-noCS in all evaluation items ( P = 1.00 in 2 readers). CONCLUSIONS: A CS factor of 1.4 in the hepatobiliary phase image with combined PI and CS can reduce the scan time without degrading the image quality compared with the standard method.

Enhanced Masses on Contrast-Enhanced Breast: Differentiation Using a Combination of Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI and Quantitative Evaluation with Synthetic MRI.

BACKGROUND: The addition of synthetic MRI might improve the diagnostic performance of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) in patients with breast cancer. PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic value of a combination of DCE-MRI and quantitative evaluation using synthetic MRI for differentiation between benign and malignant breast masses. STUDY TYPE: Retrospective, observational. POPULATION: In all, 121 patients with 131 breast masses who underwent DCE-MRI with additional synthetic MRI were enrolled. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCE: 3.0 Tesla, T1 -weighted DCE-MRI and synthetic MRI acquired by a multiple-dynamic, multiple-echo sequence. ASSESSMENT: All lesions were differentiated as benign or malignant using the following three diagnostic methods: DCE-MRI type based on the Breast Imaging-Reporting and Data System; synthetic MRI type using quantitative evaluation values calculated by synthetic MRI; and a combination of the DCE-MRI + Synthetic MRI types. The diagnostic performance of the three methods were compared. STATISTICAL TESTS: Univariate (Mann-Whitney U-test) and multivariate (binomial logistic regression) analyses were performed, followed by receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) analysis. RESULTS: Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that the mean T1 relaxation time in a breast mass obtained by synthetic MRI prior to injection of contrast agent (pre-T1 ) was the only significant quantitative value acquired by synthetic MRI that could independently differentiate between malignant and benign breast masses. The AUC for all enrolled breast masses assessed by DCE-MRI + Synthetic MRI type (0.83) was significantly greater than that for the DCE-MRI type (0.70, P < 0.05) or synthetic MRI type (0.73, P < 0.05). The AUC for category 4 masses assessed by the DCE-MRI + Synthetic MRI type was significantly greater than that for those assessed by the DCE-MRI type (0.74 vs. 0.50, P < 0.05). DATA CONCLUSION: A combination of synthetic MRI and DCE-MRI improves the accuracy of diagnosis of benign and malignant breast masses, especially category 4 masses. Level of Evidence 4 Technical Efficacy Stage 2 J. MAGN. RESON. IMAGING 2021;53:381-391.

Triple-negative breast cancer on contrast-enhanced MRI and synthetic MRI: A comparison with non-triple-negative breast carcinoma.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare the characteristics of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with non-TNBC on dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) and synthetic MRI. METHOD: This retrospective study included 79 patients with histopathologically proven breast cancer (TNBC: 16, non-TNBC: 63) who underwent synthetic MRI. Using synthetic MR images, we obtained T1 and T2 relaxation times in breast lesions before (Pre-T1, Pre-T2, Pre-PD) and after (Gd-T1, Gd-T2, Gd-PD) contrast agent injection. Subsequently, we calculated the ΔT1 (Pre-T1 - Gd-T1), ΔT2 (Pre-T2 - Gd-T2), Pre-T1/T2, and Gd-T1/T2. We compared the aforementioned quantitative values, as well as several morphologic features between TNBCs and non-TNBCs that were identified on DCE-MRI. RESULTS: The multivariate analyses revealed that the Pre-T2 (P = 0.037) and the presence of rim enhancement (P-RIM) (P = 0.034) were significant and independent predictors of TNBC. The area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for all breast cancers was greater when a combination of Pre-T2 and P-RIM (Pre-T2＋P-RIM; Method 3, AUC (area under the curve) = 0.858) was used to distinguish between TNBCs and non-TNBCs versus the use of either Pre-T2 alone (Method 1, AUC = 0.786) or P-RIM alone (Method 2, AUC = 0.747). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-T2 obtained using synthetic MRI and P-RIM identified on DCE-MRI allowed the differentiation between TNBCs and non-TNBCs. However, these results are preliminary and need to be verified by further studies.