Axmacher, Jessica A

Abstract Objective The quality of all clinical MRI is dependent on B0 homogeneity, which is optimized during the shimming part of a prescan or preparatory phase before image acquisition. The purpose of this study was to assess shimming techniques clinically employed for breast MRI across our practice, and to determine factors that correlate with higher image quality for contrast-enhanced breast MRI at 1.5T. Methods One hundred consecutive female patients were retrospectively collected with Institutional Review Board approval. Shimming-related parameters, including shim-box placement and shimming gradient offsets were extracted from prior contrast-enhanced 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient echo image acquisitions. Three breast radiologists evaluated these images for fat saturation, breast density, overall image quality, and artifacts. Technologist experience was also evaluated for variability of shimming. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare acquisition parameters between fat saturation. P < 0.05 was considered as statistical significance. Results The percentage of soft tissue inside the field of view (FOV) (ie, Tissue/FOV) in the good fat-saturation group (0.37 ± 0.06) was significantly lower (P < 0.01) than that in the poor fat-saturation group (0.39 ± 0.06). Other shimming-related parameters were found not significantly affecting the fat-saturation outcomes. Technologists with more experience tended to have less variable shimming performance than junior technologists did. Conclusions The quality of clinical MRI and especially breast MRI is highly dependent on shimming. Decreasing Tissue/FOV was associated with good image quality (good fat saturation). Optimization of shimming may require manual shimming or higher-order field-correction strategies.

Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare diagnostic outcomes of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses worked up with mammography first with those evaluated with diagnostic ultrasound initially. Methods: All masses recalled from screening digital breast tomosynthesis between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017 that were sent either to diagnostic mammography or ultrasound were compared. Size, shape, margins, visibility on ultrasound, diagnostic assessment and pathology of all masses along with breast density were evaluated. Results: 102/212 digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses were worked up with diagnostic mammography initially and 110/212 were worked up with ultrasound directly. There was no significant difference in ultrasound visibility of masses sent to diagnostic mammography first with those sent to ultrasound first (p = 0.42). 4 (4%) masses sent to mammogram first and 2 (2%) masses sent to ultrasound first were not visualized. There was a significant difference in size between masses that were visualized under ultrasound versus those that were not (p = 0.01), when masses in both groups were assessed cumulatively. Conclusions: 98% of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses sent to ultrasound directly were adequately assessed without diagnostic mammography. Advances in knowledge: There is potential for avoiding a diagnostic mammogram for evaluation of majority of digital breast tomosynthesis screen-detected masses.