4.6 Article

Readout-Segmented Echo-Planar Imaging in Diffusion-Weighted MR Imaging in Breast Cancer: Comparison with Single-Shot Echo-Planar Imaging in Image Quality

Journal

KOREAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 403-410

Publisher

KOREAN RADIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2014.15.4.403

Keywords

Breast neoplasm; Magnetic resonance imaging; Diffusion-weighted MRI

Funding

  1. Catholic Research Coordinating Center of the Korea Health 21 RD Project [A070001]
  2. Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the image quality of standard single-shot echo-planar imaging (ss-EPI) and that of readout-segmented EPI (rs-EPI) in patients with breast cancer. Materials and Methods: Seventy-one patients with 74 breast cancers underwent both ss-EPI and rs-EPI. For qualitative comparison of image quality, three readers independently assessed the two sets of diffusion-weighted (DW) images. To evaluate geometric distortion, a comparison was made between Lesion lengths derived from contrast enhanced MR (CE-MR) images and those obtained from the corresponding DW images. For assessment of image parameters, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), lesion contrast, and contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) were calculated. Results: The rs-EPI was superior to ss-EPI in most criteria regarding the qualitative image quality. Anatomical structure distinction, delineation of the Lesion, ghosting artifact, and overall image quality were significantly better in rs-EPI. Regarding the geometric distortion, lesion length on ss-EPI was significantly different from that of CE-MR, whereas there were no significant differences between CE-MR and rs-EPI. The rs-EPI was superior to ss-EPI in SNR and CNR. Conclusion: Readout-segmented EPI is superior to ss-EPI in the aspect of image quality in DW MR imaging of the breast.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available