Studies on the Ability to Detect Lesions According to the Changes in the MR Diffusion Weighted Images

  • Kim, Chang-Bok (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health College University) ;
  • Cho, Jae-Hwan (Department of Radiological Science, Gyeongsan University College) ;
  • Dong, Kyung-Rae (Department of Radiological Technology, Gwangju Health College University) ;
  • Chung, Woon-Kwan (Department of Nuclear Engineering, Chosun University)
  • Received : 2012.03.28
  • Accepted : 2012.04.06
  • Published : 2012.06.30


This study evaluated the ability of Diffusion-Weight Image (DWI), which is one of pulse sequences used in MRI based on the T2 weighted images, to detect samples placed within phantoms according to their size. Two identically sized phantoms, which could be inserted into the breast coil bilaterally, were prepared. Five samples with different sizes were placed in the phantoms, and the T2 weighted images and DWI were obtained. The Breast 2 channel coil of SIEMENS MAGNETOM Avanto 1.5 Tesla equipment was used for the experiments. 2D T2 weighted images were obtained using the following parameters: TR/TE = 6700/74 msec, Thickness/gap = 5/1 mm, Inversion Time (TI) = 130 ms, and matrix = $224{\times}448$. The parameters of DWI were that TR/TE = 8100/90 msec, Thickness/gap = 5/1 mm, matrix = $128{\times}128$, Inversion Time = 185 ms, and b-value = 0, 100, 300, 600, 1000 s/mm. The ratio of the sample volume on DWI compared to the T2 weighted images, which show excellent ability to detect lesions on MR images, was presented as the mean b-value. The measured b-value of the samples was obtained: 0.5${\times}$0.5 cm=0.33/0.34 square ${\times}$ cm (103%), 1${\times}$1 cm=1.28/1.25 square ${\times}$ cm (102.4%), 1.5${\times}$1.5 cm = 2.28/2.67 square ${\times}$ cm (85.39%), 2${\times}$2 cm=3.56/4.08 square ${\times}$ cm (87.25%), and 2.5${\times}$2.5 cm=7.53/8.77 square ${\times}$ cm (85.86%). In conclusion, the detection ability by the size of a sample was measured to be over 85% compared to T2 weighted image, but the detection ability of DWI was relatively lower than that of T2 weighted image.


  1. S. H. Ahn, K. Y. Yoo, and K. Y. Breast, Cancer Res. Treat. 99, 209 (2006).
  2. B. H. Son, B. S. Kwak, J. K. Kim, H. J. Kim, S. J. Hong, J. S. Lee, U. K. Hwang, H. S. Yoon, and S. H. Ahn, Arch. Surg. 141, 155 (2006).
  3. S. H. Ahn, 2009 Seoul Breast Cancer Symposium, Seoul, 2-22 (2009).
  4. B. D. Smith, D. W. Arthur, T. A. Buchholz, B. G. Haffty, C. A. Hahn, P. H. Hardenbergh, T. B. Julian, L. B. Marks, D. A. Todor, F. A. Vicini, T. J. Whelan, J. White, J. Y. Wo, and J. R. Harris, Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 74, 987 (2009).
  5. Y. Kosaka, M. Mitsumori, C. Yamauchi, Y. Narita, and M. F. Hiraoka, Breast Cancer. 15, 108 (2008).
  6. U. Fischer, L. Kopka, and E. Grabbe, Radiology 213, 881 (1999).
  7. I. Bedrosian, R. Mick, S. G. Orel, M. Schnall, C. Reynolds, and F. Spitz, Cancer. 98, 468 (2003).
  8. H. J. Kang, J. S. Lee, H. L. Kim, B. J. Song, J. S. Kim, and S. J. Oh, J. Breast. Cancer. 9, 343 (2006).
  9. G. W. Albers, Neurology 3, 47 (1998).
  10. M. E. Abou-El-Ghar, A. El-Assmy, H. F. Refaie, and T. El-Diasty, Radiology 251, 415 (2009).
  11. L. Esserman, H. Nola, L. Yassa, J. Barclay, S. Frankel, and E. Sickles, J. Clin. Oncol. 17, 110 (1999).
  12. M. V. Goethem, W. Tjalma, K. Schelfout, I. Verslegers, I. Biltjes, and P. Parizel, Eur. J. Surg. Oncol. 32, 901 (2006).
  13. S. Sinha, F. A. Lucas-Quesada, and U. Sinha, J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 15, 693 (2002).
  14. W. Reiko, M. Keiji, and I. Keiichi, Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography 29, 644 (2005).
  15. W. Reiko, M. Keiji, K. Shinichi, and H. Hirofumi, Magnetic Resonance in Medical Sciences 4, 35 (2005).
  16. W. Evelyn, G. Christian, and S. W. Ruediger, Academic Radiology 4, 1077 (2007).