link
Bookmarks
Artifacts: MR
Haydee Ojeda-Fournier, MD; Basak E. Dogan, MD; Wendie A. Berg, MD, PhD
To access 4,300 diagnoses written by the world's leading experts in radiology, please log in or subscribe.Log inSubscribe
0
8
4
0

KEY FACTS

  • Terminology

    • Imaging

      • Top Differential Diagnoses

        TERMINOLOGY

        • Definitions

          • MR artifact: Any physical, electronic, or technical phenomenon that causes abnormal signal intensity
            • May degrade image quality and confound image interpretation; some artifacts may mimic pathology
            • 2 categories: Patient-related (positioning, motion, history) and technical (RF interference, Moiré, ghosting) artifacts
          • Magnetic susceptibility: Disruption of magnetic field in vicinity of metals, usually bright at edge of signal void
            • Magnitude depends on ferromagnetic effect of metal (i.e., more severe with iron, nickel, cobalt; less severe with titanium)
          • Magnetic field inhomogeneity: Patchy, regionally varying signal intensity, more common with larger field of view (FOV)
          • Phase encoding: Process of locating MR signal by altering phase of spins in pulsed magnetic field gradient along single dimension prior to acquisition of signal
            • Phase-encoding direction of MR sequence can be chosen to control direction of motion or wrap artifacts
          • Temporal resolution: Scan time for single set of whole-breast dynamic MR images to be acquired
          • In-plane spatial resolution: Smallest distinguishable pixel size on image; equals FOV (mm)/matrix (phase- or frequency-encoding steps); smaller pixel size = better spatial resolution; should be ≤ 1 mm x 1 mm

        IMAGING

        • Mammographic Findings

          • MR Findings

            • Imaging Recommendations

              DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

                DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                • Consider

                  Selected References

                  1. Clauser P et al: Motion artifacts, lesion type, and parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI: what does really influence diagnostic accuracy? Acta Radiol. 284185118770918, 2018
                  2. Derakhshan JJ et al: Characterizing and eliminating errors in enhancement and subtraction artifacts in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: Chemical shift artifact of the third kind. Magn Reson Med. 79(4):2277-2289, 2018
                  3. Krischer B et al: Feasibility of breast MRI after sentinel procedure for breast cancer with superparamagnetic tracers. Eur J Surg Oncol. 44(1):74-79, 2018
                  4. Kalovidouri A et al: Fat suppression techniques for breast MRI: Dixon versus spectral fat saturation for 3D T1-weighted at 3 T. Radiol Med. 122(10):731-742, 2017
                  5. Vreemann S et al: Compressed sensing for breast MRI: Resolving the trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Invest Radiol. 52(10):574-582, 2017
                  6. Anthony MP et al: Artifacts in breast magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 45(4):271-7, 2016
                  7. Winkler SA et al: Practical methods for improving B1+ homogeneity in 3 Tesla breast imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 41(4):992-9, 2015
                  8. Le Y et al: Comparison of the artifacts caused by metallic implants in breast MRI using dual-echo dixon versus conventional fat-suppression techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(3):W307-14, 2014
                  9. Yeh ED et al: Positioning in breast MR imaging to optimize image quality. Radiographics. 34(1):E1-17, 2014
                  10. DeMartini WB et al: Breast magnetic resonance imaging technique at 1.5 T and 3 T: requirements for quality imaging and American College of Radiology accreditation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 21(3):475-82, 2013
                  11. Fiaschetti V et al: Breast MRI artefacts: evaluation and solutions in 630 consecutive patients. Clin Radiol. 68(11):e601-8, 2013
                  12. Rahbar H et al: Clinical and technical considerations for high quality breast MRI at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37(4):778-90, 2013
                  13. Yitta S et al: Recognizing artifacts and optimizing breast MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 200(6):W673-82, 2013
                  14. Hargreaves BA et al: Metals in MR-mammography: how to deal with it? Eur J Radiol. 81 Suppl 1:S56-8, 2012
                  15. Ghate SV et al: Titanium vs carbon coated ceramic breast tissue marker clips: 3T MR susceptibility artifact and local signal disturbance. Acad Radiol. 18(6):770-3, 2011
                  16. Genson CC, et al. Effects on breast MRI of artifacts caused by metallic tissue marker clips; AJR 188(2):372-6, 2007
                  17. Harvey JA et al: Breast MR imaging artifacts: how to recognize and fix them. Radiographics. 27 Suppl 1:S131-45, 2007
                  18. Ojeda-Fournier H et al: Recognizing and interpreting artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the breast. Radiographics. 27 Suppl 1:S147-64, 2007
                  19. Rausch DR et al: How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on Your 1.5-T system. Radiographics. 26(5):1469-84, 2006
                  20. Murphy TJ et al: Correlation of single-lumen silicone implant integrity with chemical shift artifact on T2-weighted magnetic resonance images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 15(2):159-64, 2002
                  21. Coulthard A et al: Pitfalls of breast MRI. Br J Radiol. 73:665-71, 2000
                  22. Jones RW et al: Signal intensity artifacts in clinical MR imaging. Radiographics. 20(3):893-901, 2000
                  23. Shellock FG: Metallic marking clips used after stereotactic breast biopsy: ex vivo testing of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts associated with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 172(5):1417-9, 1999
                  24. Kuhl CK et al: Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology. 203(1):137-44, 1997
                  25. Zuo CS et al: Automatic motion correction for breast MR imaging. Radiology. 198(3):903-6, 1996
                  26. Hylton NM et al: Imaging techniques for breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2(4):511-25, 1994
                  Related Anatomy
                  Loading...
                  Related Differential Diagnoses
                  Loading...
                  References
                  Tables

                  Tables

                  KEY FACTS

                  • Terminology

                    • Imaging

                      • Top Differential Diagnoses

                        TERMINOLOGY

                        • Definitions

                          • MR artifact: Any physical, electronic, or technical phenomenon that causes abnormal signal intensity
                            • May degrade image quality and confound image interpretation; some artifacts may mimic pathology
                            • 2 categories: Patient-related (positioning, motion, history) and technical (RF interference, Moiré, ghosting) artifacts
                          • Magnetic susceptibility: Disruption of magnetic field in vicinity of metals, usually bright at edge of signal void
                            • Magnitude depends on ferromagnetic effect of metal (i.e., more severe with iron, nickel, cobalt; less severe with titanium)
                          • Magnetic field inhomogeneity: Patchy, regionally varying signal intensity, more common with larger field of view (FOV)
                          • Phase encoding: Process of locating MR signal by altering phase of spins in pulsed magnetic field gradient along single dimension prior to acquisition of signal
                            • Phase-encoding direction of MR sequence can be chosen to control direction of motion or wrap artifacts
                          • Temporal resolution: Scan time for single set of whole-breast dynamic MR images to be acquired
                          • In-plane spatial resolution: Smallest distinguishable pixel size on image; equals FOV (mm)/matrix (phase- or frequency-encoding steps); smaller pixel size = better spatial resolution; should be ≤ 1 mm x 1 mm

                        IMAGING

                        • Mammographic Findings

                          • MR Findings

                            • Imaging Recommendations

                              DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

                                DIAGNOSTIC CHECKLIST

                                • Consider

                                  Selected References

                                  1. Clauser P et al: Motion artifacts, lesion type, and parenchymal enhancement in breast MRI: what does really influence diagnostic accuracy? Acta Radiol. 284185118770918, 2018
                                  2. Derakhshan JJ et al: Characterizing and eliminating errors in enhancement and subtraction artifacts in dynamic contrast-enhanced breast MRI: Chemical shift artifact of the third kind. Magn Reson Med. 79(4):2277-2289, 2018
                                  3. Krischer B et al: Feasibility of breast MRI after sentinel procedure for breast cancer with superparamagnetic tracers. Eur J Surg Oncol. 44(1):74-79, 2018
                                  4. Kalovidouri A et al: Fat suppression techniques for breast MRI: Dixon versus spectral fat saturation for 3D T1-weighted at 3 T. Radiol Med. 122(10):731-742, 2017
                                  5. Vreemann S et al: Compressed sensing for breast MRI: Resolving the trade-off between spatial and temporal resolution. Invest Radiol. 52(10):574-582, 2017
                                  6. Anthony MP et al: Artifacts in breast magnetic resonance imaging. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 45(4):271-7, 2016
                                  7. Winkler SA et al: Practical methods for improving B1+ homogeneity in 3 Tesla breast imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging. 41(4):992-9, 2015
                                  8. Le Y et al: Comparison of the artifacts caused by metallic implants in breast MRI using dual-echo dixon versus conventional fat-suppression techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 203(3):W307-14, 2014
                                  9. Yeh ED et al: Positioning in breast MR imaging to optimize image quality. Radiographics. 34(1):E1-17, 2014
                                  10. DeMartini WB et al: Breast magnetic resonance imaging technique at 1.5 T and 3 T: requirements for quality imaging and American College of Radiology accreditation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 21(3):475-82, 2013
                                  11. Fiaschetti V et al: Breast MRI artefacts: evaluation and solutions in 630 consecutive patients. Clin Radiol. 68(11):e601-8, 2013
                                  12. Rahbar H et al: Clinical and technical considerations for high quality breast MRI at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37(4):778-90, 2013
                                  13. Yitta S et al: Recognizing artifacts and optimizing breast MRI at 1.5 and 3 T. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 200(6):W673-82, 2013
                                  14. Hargreaves BA et al: Metals in MR-mammography: how to deal with it? Eur J Radiol. 81 Suppl 1:S56-8, 2012
                                  15. Ghate SV et al: Titanium vs carbon coated ceramic breast tissue marker clips: 3T MR susceptibility artifact and local signal disturbance. Acad Radiol. 18(6):770-3, 2011
                                  16. Genson CC, et al. Effects on breast MRI of artifacts caused by metallic tissue marker clips; AJR 188(2):372-6, 2007
                                  17. Harvey JA et al: Breast MR imaging artifacts: how to recognize and fix them. Radiographics. 27 Suppl 1:S131-45, 2007
                                  18. Ojeda-Fournier H et al: Recognizing and interpreting artifacts and pitfalls in MR imaging of the breast. Radiographics. 27 Suppl 1:S147-64, 2007
                                  19. Rausch DR et al: How to optimize clinical breast MR imaging practices and techniques on Your 1.5-T system. Radiographics. 26(5):1469-84, 2006
                                  20. Murphy TJ et al: Correlation of single-lumen silicone implant integrity with chemical shift artifact on T2-weighted magnetic resonance images. J Magn Reson Imaging. 15(2):159-64, 2002
                                  21. Coulthard A et al: Pitfalls of breast MRI. Br J Radiol. 73:665-71, 2000
                                  22. Jones RW et al: Signal intensity artifacts in clinical MR imaging. Radiographics. 20(3):893-901, 2000
                                  23. Shellock FG: Metallic marking clips used after stereotactic breast biopsy: ex vivo testing of ferromagnetism, heating, and artifacts associated with MR imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 172(5):1417-9, 1999
                                  24. Kuhl CK et al: Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology. 203(1):137-44, 1997
                                  25. Zuo CS et al: Automatic motion correction for breast MR imaging. Radiology. 198(3):903-6, 1996
                                  26. Hylton NM et al: Imaging techniques for breast MR imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2(4):511-25, 1994