ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Oncol.
Sec. Breast Cancer
A quantitative method to compare regional tumor contrast between prone and supine breast MRI
Brook K. Byrd 1
Venkat Krishnaswamy 2
Misty J. Fox 2,3
Jiang Gui 4
Roberta DiFlorio-Alexander 3
Keith D Paulsen 2,1
Richard J. Barth 2,5
Timothy B Rooney 6
1. Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, United States, New Hampshire, 03755
2. CairnSurgical Inc., Lebanon, United States
3. Department of Radiology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, United States, New Hampshire, 03756
4. Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College, Hanover, United States, New Hampshire, 03755
5. Department of Surgery, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, United States, New Hampshire, 03756
6. Department of Radiology and Medical Imaging, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, United States, Virginia, 22903
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Abstract
Purpose: For surgical guidance applications, supine breast MRI tumor contrast should be non-inferior to prone MRI, currently considered the standard-of-care. However, comparing image contrast quantitatively between different MRI sequences and breast orientations presents a significant challenge. Herein, we present a method for quantitatively comparing regional tumor contrast in the prone and supine breast MRI orientations for the purpose of tumor localization, and we apply this framework to assess the performance of two investigational supine scans (i.e. independent and prone-to-supine, P2S) compared to diagnostic prone MRI. Methods: Patient tumors from two studies (NCT03573804, NCT03573661) were outlined slice-by-slice by a breast radiologist using Gd-enhanced, T1-weighted MRI. Image data were derived from subjects undergoing standard-of-care prone imaging (n = 78), independent supine imaging (n = 17), and P2S supine imaging (n = 61). Normalized tumor contrast was computed between the segmented tumor and neighboring normal tissue regions and compared for statistical differences amongst cohorts and non-inferiority to prone MRI. Results: The independent supine cohort possessed non-inferior tumor-to-fibroglandular contrast compared to prone (p = 0.002), while tumor-to-fibroglandular contrast from the P2S supine cohort was found inferior to the prone cohort. However, both investigational supine scans produced non-inferior tumor-to-adipose contrast when compared to prone MRI (p < 0.001 in both cases). Conclusions: Regional contrast between tumor and surrounding fibroglandular tissue suffered at later timepoints observed in the P2S supine study, resulting in inferior tumor contrast. However, when contrast-enhanced supine breast MRI is acquired independently, ratiometric comparisons indicate that tumor contrast is non-inferior to prone MRI.
Summary
Keywords
BCS planning, Breast neoplasm, contrast-enhanced MRI, multimodal MRI, supine breast MRI
Received
11 August 2024
Accepted
17 February 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Byrd, Krishnaswamy, Fox, Gui, DiFlorio-Alexander, Paulsen, Barth and Rooney. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Brook K. Byrd; Timothy B Rooney
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.