Sarah Marie Pittman

All Publications

• The ACR Medical Image Quality Assessment System (MIQAS): A Unified Approach to Image Quality Assessment in Radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR Larson, D. B., Kazerooni, E. A., Wandtke, B. C., Amurao, M., Davenport, M. S., Newell, M. S., Pittman, S. M., Purysko, A. S., Scuderi, A. J., Bhargavan-Chatfield, M. 2025

  Abstract

  Image quality is central to the accurate interpretation of medical imaging, yet it remains inconsistently defined and assessed across clinical practice. To address this, the ACR has developed the Medical Image Quality Assessment System (MIQAS), a standardized, descriptive framework that characterizes image quality based on its alignment with relevant clinical task requirements. This framework will serve as the image quality assessment standard for all relevant ACR programs, including the ACR Accreditation Program, the Reporting and Data Systems programs, Practice Parameters and Technical Standards, and the ACR Learning Network. In this framework, image quality is defined as the degree to which an image approximates an exact representation of its subject in ways that matter for a specific clinical task. Image quality assessments may be quantitative, semiquantitative, or categorical, but should be reproducible and valid. Under this framework, key image quality elements of an imaging examination are individually scored and aggregated into a composite score on a 5-point scale: 0 (out of standard), 1 (nondiagnostic), 2 (limited), 3 (adequate), and 4 (excellent). For "bounded" image quality factors that involve trade-offs with cost or risk-such as radiation dose in CT-the goal is "adequate" image quality. For unbounded factors without such trade-offs-such as positioning or labeling-the goal is "excellent" image quality. Individual scoring systems will be developed under this overarching framework for specific modalities, organ systems, and diagnostic tasks. Once published, each scoring system becomes an ACR-supported standard, updated periodically based on emerging evidence. In this way, the MIQAS framework is designed to unify image quality assessment across ACR programs, guide local quality improvement efforts, and serve as a unified image quality assessment standard for research, education, and technology development.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2025.11.002

  View details for PubMedID 41379064

• False-Negative Screening and Diagnostic Mammograms in the National Mammography Database From 2010 to 2022. AJR. American journal of roentgenology Oluyemi, E. T., Grimm, L. J., Goldman, L., Lee, M., Pittman, S. M., Rosen, E., Zuley, M. L., Lee, C. S. 2025

  Abstract

  Background: False-negative (FN) mammograms typically delay breast cancer diagnoses and may impact clinical outcomes. However, systematic evaluations of FN mammograms are challenging to conduct due to interval cancers' low incidence. Objective: To evaluate the rates of FN screening and diagnostic mammograms in the National Mammography Database (NMD), and to assess associations of FN rates with patient- and facility-level characteristics. Methods: This retrospective study included all screening and diagnostic mammograms in the NMD performed from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2022. Patient- and facility-level factors were extracted from the NMD. FN mammograms were defined as those with a negative result in a patient with a tissue diagnosis of breast cancer within the subsequent 1 year. FN rates per 1000 examinations were computed. Separate multivariable analyses were performed to identify associations with FN results for screening and diagnostic examinations. Results: The analysis included 38,304,525 mammography examinations in 15,585,433 women (mean age, 58.8±11.7 years). Of 32,267,238 screening examinations, the FN rate was 1.9 (minimum, 0.7 in 2010; maximum, 2.5 from 2020 to 2022). Of 6,037,287 diagnostic examinations, the FN rate was 4.0 (minimum, 2.3 in 2010; maximum, 5.4 in 2020). In multivariable analysis for screening examinations, the likelihood of a FN examination was lower for race categories other than White (OR=0.30-0.95), higher for breast density categories other than almost entirely fatty breasts (OR=1.60-2.00), higher for women with personal (OR=3.69) or family (OR=1.29) history of breast cancer, and higher for academic or university-based facilities (OR=1.37); for diagnostic examinations, the likelihood of a FN examination was lower for race categories of Asian (OR=0.91) and Hawaiian (OR=0.77) and higher for a race category of Black (OR=1.12), lower for Hispanic patients (OR=0.70), higher for heterogeneously (OR=1.46) or extremely (OR=1.86) dense breasts, higher for women with personal (OR=7.82) or family (OR=1.31) history of breast cancer, and higher for academic or university-based facilities (OR=1.37). Conclusion: Rates of FN screening and diagnostic mammograms increased over time and showed significant associations with patient and facility characteristics. Clinical Impact: Exploration of the causes of the observed associations could inform quality assurance efforts to reduce the risk of delayed breast cancer diagnoses.

  View details for DOI 10.2214/AJR.25.33636

  View details for PubMedID 41123961

• The ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative: A Multi-Center Improvement Program within a Learning Network Framework. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR Pittman, S. M., Zacharias-Andrews, K., Tomkins, K. G., Bhargavan-Chatfield, M., Larson, D. B. 2024

  Abstract

  To share the experience and results of the first cohort of the ACR Mammography Positioning Improvement Collaborative, in which participating sites aimed to increase the mean percentage of screening mammograms meeting the established positioning criteria to 85% or greater and show at least modest evidence of improvement at each site by the end of the improvement program.The sites comprising the first cohort of the Collaborative were selected on the basis of strength of local leadership support, intra-organizational relationships, access to data and analytic support, and experience with quality improvement (QI) initiatives. During the improvement program, participating sites organized their teams, developed goals, gathered data, evaluated their current state, identified key drivers and root causes of their problems, and developed and tested interventions. A standardized image quality scoring system was also established. The impact of the interventions implemented at each site was assessed by tracking the percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria over time.Six organizations were selected to participate as the first cohort, beginning with participation in the improvement program. Interventions developed and implemented at each site during the program resulted in improvement in the average percentage of screening mammograms meeting overall passing criteria per week from a collaborative mean of 51% to 86%, with four of six sites meeting or exceeding the target mean performance of 85% by the end of the improvement program. Afterwards, all respondents to the post-program survey indicated that the program was a positive experience.Using a structured improvement program within a learning network framework, the first cohort of the Collaborative demonstrated that improvement in mammography positioning performance can be achieved at multiple sites simultaneously, and validated the hypothesis that local sites' shared experiences, insights, and learnings would not only improve performance but would also build a community of improvers collaborating to create the best experience for technologists, staff, and patients.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2024.06.013

  View details for PubMedID 38950833

• The Postoperative Breast: Imaging Findings and Diagnostic Pitfalls After Breast-Conserving Surgery and Oncoplastic Breast Surgery. Journal of breast imaging Pittman, S. M., Rosen, E. L., DeMartini, W. B., Nguyen, D. H., Poplack, S. P., Ikeda, D. M. 2024

  Abstract

  Breast surgery is the cornerstone of treatment for early breast cancer. Historically, mastectomy and conventional breast-conserving surgery (BCS) were the main surgical techniques for treatment. Now, oncoplastic breast surgery (OBS), introduced in the 1990s, allows for a combination of BCS and reconstructive surgery to excise the cancer while preserving or enhancing the contour of the breast, leading to improved aesthetic results. Although imaging after conventional lumpectomy demonstrates typical postsurgical changes with known evolution patterns over time, OBS procedures show postsurgical changes/fat necrosis in locations other than the lumpectomy site. The purpose of this article is to familiarize radiologists with various types of surgical techniques for removal of breast cancer and to distinguish benign postoperative imaging findings from suspicious findings that warrant further work-up.

  View details for DOI 10.1093/jbi/wbad105

  View details for PubMedID 38262628

• The ACR Learning Network: Facilitating Local Performance Improvement Through Shared Learning. Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR Larson, D. B., Tomkins, K. G., Zacharias-Andrews, K., Irani, N., Pittman, S. M., Purysko, A. S., Wandtke, B., Bhargavan-Chatfield, M. 2023; 20 (3): 369-376

  Abstract

  The ACR Learning Network was established to test the viability of the learning network model in radiology. In this report, the authors review the learning network concept, introduce the ACR Learning Network and its components, and report progress to date and plans for the future.Patterned after institutional programs developed by the principal investigator, the ACR Learning Network was composed of four distinct improvement collaboratives. Initial participating sites were solicited through broad program advertisement. Candidate programs were selected on the basis of assessments of local leadership support, experience with quality improvement initiatives, intraorganizational relationships, and access to data and analytic support. Participation began with completing a 27-week formal quality improvement training and project support program, with local teams reporting weekly progress on a common performance measure.Four improvement collaborative topics were chosen for the initial cohort with the following numbers of participating sites: mammography positioning (6), prostate MR image quality (6), lung cancer screening (6), and follow-up on recommendations for management of incidental findings (4). To date, all sites have remained actively engaged and have progressed in an expected fashion. A detailed report of the results of the improvement phase will be provided in a future publication.To date, the ACR Learning Network has successfully achieved planned milestones outlined in the program's plan, with preparation under way for the second and third cohorts. By providing a shared platform for improvement training and knowledge sharing, the authors are optimistic that the network may facilitate widespread performance improvement in radiology on a number of topics for years to come.

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.01.004

  View details for PubMedID 36922112

• Radiologists staunchly support patient safety and autonomy, in opposition to the SCOTUS decision to overturn Roe v Wade. Clinical imaging Karandikar, A., Solberg, A., Fung, A., Lee, A. Y., Farooq, A., Taylor, A. C., Oliveira, A., Narayan, A., Senter, A., Majid, A., Tong, A., McGrath, A. L., Malik, A., Brown, A. L., Roberts, A., Fleischer, A., Vettiyil, B., Zigmund, B., Park, B., Curran, B., Henry, C., Jaimes, C., Connolly, C., Robson, C., Meltzer, C. C., Phillips, C. H., Dove, C., Glastonbury, C., Pomeranz, C., Kirsch, C. F., Burgan, C. M., Scher, C., Tomblinson, C., Fuss, C., Santillan, C., Daye, D., Brown, D. B., Young, D. J., Kopans, D., Vargas, D., Martin, D., Thompson, D., Jordan, D. W., Shatzkes, D., Sun, D., Mastrodicasa, D., Smith, E., Korngold, E., Dibble, E. H., Arleo, E. K., Hecht, E. M., Morris, E., Maltin, E. P., Cooke, E. A., Schwartz, E. S., Lehrman, E., Sodagari, F., Shah, F., Doo, F. X., Rigiroli, F., Vilanilam, G. K., Landinez, G., Kim, G. G., Rahbar, H., Choi, H., Bandesha, H., Ojeda-Fournier, H., Ikuta, I., Dragojevic, I., Schroeder, J. L., Ivanidze, J., Katzen, J. T., Chiang, J., Nguyen, J., Robinson, J. D., Broder, J. C., Kemp, J., Weaver, J. S., Conyers, J. M., Robbins, J. B., Leschied, J. R., Wen, J., Park, J., Mongan, J., Perchik, J., Barbero, J. P., Jacob, J., Ledbetter, K., Macura, K. J., Maturen, K. E., Frederick-Dyer, K., Dodelzon, K., Cort, K., Kisling, K., Babagbemi, K., McGill, K. C., Chang, K. J., Feigin, K., Winsor, K. S., Seifert, K., Patel, K., Porter, K. K., Foley, K. M., Patel-Lippmann, K., McIntosh, L. J., Padilla, L., Groner, L., Harry, L. M., Ladd, L. M., Wang, L., Spalluto, L. B., Mahesh, M., Marx, M. V., Sugi, M. D., Sammer, M. B., Sun, M., Barkovich, M. J., Miller, M. J., Vella, M., Davis, M. A., Englander, M. J., Durst, M., Oumano, M., Wood, M. J., McBee, M. P., Fischbein, N. J., Kovalchuk, N., Lall, N., Eclov, N., Madhuripan, N., Ariaratnam, N. S., Vincoff, N. S., Kothary, N., Yahyavi-Firouz-Abadi, N., Brook, O. R., Glenn, O. A., Woodard, P. K., Mazaheri, P., Rhyner, P., Eby, P. R., Raghu, P., Gerson, R. F., Patel, R., Gutierrez, R. L., Gebhard, R., Andreotti, R. F., Masum, R., Woods, R., Mandava, S., Harrington, S. G., Parikh, S., Chu, S., Arora, S. S., Meyers, S. M., Prabhu, S., Shams, S., Pittman, S., Patel, S. N., Payne, S., Hetts, S. W., Hijaz, T. A., Chapman, T., Loehfelm, T. W., Juang, T., Clark, T. J., Potigailo, V., Shah, V., Planz, V., Kalia, V., DeMartini, W., Dillon, W. P., Gupta, Y., Koethe, Y., Hartley-Blossom, Z., Wang, Z. J., McGinty, G., Haramati, A., Allen, L. M., Germaine, P. 2022

  View details for DOI 10.1016/j.clinimag.2022.07.011

  View details for PubMedID 36064645

• Breast Density Legislation Impact on Breast Cancer Screening and Risk Assessment. Journal of breast imaging Kothari, P., Tseng, J. J., Chalfant, J. S., Pittman, S. M., Hoyt, A. C., Larsen, L., Sheth, P., Yamashita, M., Downey, J., Ikeda, D. M. 2022; 4 (4): 371-377

  Abstract

  To evaluate breast density notification legislation (BDNL) on breast imaging practice patterns, risk assessment, and supplemental screening.A 20-question anonymous web-based survey was administered to practicing Society of Breast Imaging radiologists in the U.S. between February and April 2021 regarding breast cancer risk assessment, supplemental screening, and density measurements. Results were compared between facilities with and without BDNL using the two-sided Fisher's exact test.One hundred and ninety-seven radiologists from 41 U.S. states, with (187/197, 95%) or without (10/197, 5%) BDNL, responded. Fifty-seven percent (113/197) performed breast cancer risk assessment, and 93% (183/197) offered supplemental screening for women with dense breasts. Between facilities with or without BDNL, there was no significant difference in whether risk assessment was (P = 0.19) or was not performed (P = 0.20). There was no significant difference in supplemental screening types (P > 0.05) between BDNL and non-BDNL facilities. Thirty-five percent (69/197) of facilities offered no supplemental screening studies, and 25% (49/197) had no future plans to offer supplemental screening. A statistically significant greater proportion of non-BDNL facilities offered no supplemental screening (P < 0.03) and had no plans to offer supplemental screening compared to BDNL facilities (P < 0.02).Facilities in BDNL states often offer supplemental screening compared to facilities in non-BDNL states. Compared to BDNL facilities, a statistically significant proportion of non-BDNL facilities had no supplemental screening nor plans for implementation. Our data suggest that upcoming federal BDNL will impact how supplemental screening is addressed in currently non-BDNL states.

  View details for DOI 10.1093/jbi/wbac034

  View details for PubMedID 38416983

• FDG Avid Abnormalities in the Breast: Breast Cancer Mimics CURRENT RADIOLOGY REPORTS Faast, A., Ikeda, D. M., Pittman, S., DeMartini, W., Kozlov, A. 2021; 9 (8)

  View details for DOI 10.1007/s40134-021-00383-5

  View details for Web of Science ID 000679401000001

• Adaptations of Breast Imaging Centers to the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Survey of California and Texas. Journal of breast imaging Chalfant, J. S., Cohen, E. O., Leung, J. W., Pittman, S. M., Kothari, P. D., Downey, J. R., Sohlich, R. E., Chong, A., Grimm, L. J., Hoyt, A. C., Ojeda-Fournier, H., Joe, B. N., Trinh, L., Rosen, E. L., Feig, S. A., Aminololama-Shakeri, S., Ikeda, D. M. 2021; 3 (3): 343-353

  Abstract

  To determine the early impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging centers in California and Texas and compare regional differences.An 11-item survey was emailed to American College of Radiology accredited breast imaging facilities in California and Texas in August 2020. A question subset addressed March-April government restrictions on elective services ("during the shutdown" and "after reopening"). Comparisons were made between states with chi-square and Fisher's tests, and timeframes with McNemar's and paired t-tests.There were 54 respondents (54/240, 23%, 26 California, 28 Texas). Imaging volumes fell during the shutdown and remained below pre-pandemic levels after reopening, with reduction in screening greatest (ultrasound 12% of baseline, mammography 13%, MRI 23%), followed by diagnostic MRI (43%), procedures (44%), and diagnostics (45%). California reported higher volumes during the shutdown (procedures, MRI) and after reopening (diagnostics, procedures, MRI) versus Texas (P = 0.001-0.02). Most screened patients (52/54, 96% symptoms and 42/54, 78% temperatures), and 100% (53/53) modified check-in and check-out. Reading rooms or physician work were altered for social distancing (31/54, 57%). Physician mask (45/48, 94%), gown (15/48, 31%), eyewear (22/48, 46%), and face shield (22/48, 46%) use during procedures increased after reopening versus pre-pandemic (P < 0.001-0.03). Physician (47/54, 87%) and staff (45/53, 85%) financial impacts were common, but none reported terminations.Breast imaging volumes during the early pandemic fell more severely in Texas than in California. Safety measures and financial impacts on physicians and staff were similar in both states.

  View details for DOI 10.1093/jbi/wbab020

  View details for PubMedID 38424771

• Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Breast Imaging Education. Journal of breast imaging Chalfant, J. S., Pittman, S. M., Kothari, P. D., Chong, A., Grimm, L. J., Sohlich, R. E., Leung, J. W., Downey, J. R., Cohen, E. O., Ojeda-Fournier, H., Hoyt, A. C., Joe, B. N., Feig, S. A., Trinh, L., Rosen, E. L., Aminololama-Shakeri, S., Ikeda, D. M. 2021; 3 (3): 354-362

  Abstract

  Objective: To determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on breast imaging education.Methods: A 22-item survey addressing four themes during the early pandemic (time on service, structured education, clinical training, future plans) was emailed to Society of Breast Imaging members and members-in-training in July 2020. Responses were compared using McNemar's and Mann-Whitney U tests; a general linear model was used for multivariate analysis.Results: Of 136 responses (136/2824, 4.8%), 96 U.S. responses from radiologists with trainees, residents, and fellows were included. Clinical exposure declined during the early pandemic, with almost no medical students on service (66/67, 99%) and fewer clinical days for residents (78/89, 88%) and fellows (48/68, 71%). Conferences shifted to remote live format (57/78, 73%), with some canceled (15/78, 19%). Compared to pre-pandemic, resident diagnostic (75/78, 96% vs 26/78, 33%) (P < 0.001) and procedural (73/78, 94% vs 21/78, 27%) (P < 0.001) participation fell, as did fellow diagnostic (60/61, 98% vs 47/61, 77%) (P = 0.001) and procedural (60/61, 98% vs 43/61, 70%) (P < 0.001) participation. Most thought that the pandemic negatively influenced resident and fellow screening (64/77, 83% and 43/60, 72%, respectively), diagnostic (66/77, 86% and 37/60, 62%), and procedural (71/77, 92% and 37/61, 61%) education. However, a majority thought that decreased time on service (36/67, 54%) and patient contact (46/79, 58%) would not change residents' pursuit of a breast imaging fellowship.Conclusion: The pandemic has had a largely negative impact on breast imaging education, with reduction in exposure to all aspects of breast imaging. However, this may not affect career decisions.

  View details for DOI 10.1093/jbi/wbab021

  View details for PubMedID 34056594

• Multishot Diffusion-Weighted MRI of the Breast With Multiplexed Sensitivity Encoding (MUSE) and Shot Locally Low-Rank (Shot-LLR) Reconstructions. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI Hu, Y., Ikeda, D. M., Pittman, S. M., Samarawickrama, D., Guidon, A., Rosenberg, J., Chen, S., Okamoto, S., Daniel, B. L., Hargreaves, B. A., Moran, C. J. 2020

  Abstract

  BACKGROUND: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has shown promise to screen for breast cancer without a contrast injection, but image distortion and low spatial resolution limit standard single-shot DWI. Multishot DWI methods address these limitations but introduce shot-to-shot phase variations requiring correction during reconstruction.PURPOSE: To investigate the performance of two multishot DWI reconstruction methods, multiplexed sensitivity encoding (MUSE) and shot locally low-rank (shot-LLR), compared to single-shot DWI in the breast.STUDY TYPE: Prospective.POPULATION: A total of 45 women who consented to have multishot DWI added to a clinically indicated breast MRI.FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES: Single-shot DWI reconstructed by parallel imaging, multishot DWI with four or eight shots reconstructed by MUSE and shot-LLR, 3D T2 -weighted imaging, and contrast-enhanced MRI at 3T.ASSESSMENT: Three blinded observers scored images for 1) general image quality (perceived signal-to-noise ratio [SNR], ghosting, distortion), 2) lesion features (discernment and morphology), and 3) perceived resolution. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the lesion was also measured and compared between methods.STATISTICAL TESTS: Image quality features and perceived resolution were assessed with a mixed-effects logistic regression. Agreement among observers was estimated with a Krippendorf's alpha using linear weighting. Lesion feature ratings were visualized using histograms, and correlation coefficients of lesion ADC between different methods were calculated.RESULTS: MUSE and shot-LLR images were rated to have significantly better perceived resolution (P<0.001), higher SNR (P<0.005), and a lower level of distortion (P<0.05) with respect to single-shot DWI. Shot-LLR showed reduced ghosting artifacts with respect to both MUSE (P<0.001) and single-shot DWI (P<0.001). Eight-shot DWI had improved perceived SNR and perceived resolution with respect to four-shot DWI (P<0.005).DATA CONCLUSION: Multishot DWI enables increased resolution and improved image quality with respect to single-shot DWI in the breast. Shot-LLR reconstructs multishot DWI with minimal ghosting artifacts. The improvement of multishot DWI in image quality increases with an increased number of shots.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 2.

  View details for DOI 10.1002/jmri.27383

  View details for PubMedID 33067849

• Diffusion-weighted double-echo steady-state with a three-dimensional cones trajectory for non-contrast-enhanced breast MRI. Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI Moran, C. J., Cheng, J. Y., Sandino, C. M., Carl, M. n., Alley, M. T., Rosenberg, J. n., Daniel, B. L., Pittman, S. M., Rosen, E. L., Hargreaves, B. A. 2020

  Abstract

  The image quality limitations of echo-planar diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) are an obstacle to its widespread adoption in the breast. Steady-state DWI is an alternative DWI method with more robust image quality but its contrast for imaging breast cancer is not well-understood. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate diffusion-weighted double-echo steady-state imaging with a three-dimensional cones trajectory (DW-DESS-Cones) as an alternative to conventional DWI for non-contrast-enhanced MRI in the breast. This prospective study included 28 women undergoing clinically indicated breast MRI and six asymptomatic volunteers. In vivo studies were performed at 3 T and included DW-DESS-Cones, DW-DESS-Cartesian, DWI, and CE-MRI acquisitions. Phantom experiments (diffusion phantom, High Precision Devices) and simulations were performed to establish framework for contrast of DW-DESS-Cones in comparison to DWI in the breast. Motion artifacts of DW-DESS-Cones were measured with artifact-to-noise ratio in volunteers and patients. Lesion-to-fibroglandular tissue signal ratios were measured, lesions were categorized as hyperintense or hypointense, and an image quality observer study was performed in DW-DESS-Cones and DWI in patients. Effect of DW-DESS-Cones method on motion artifacts was tested by mixed-effects generalized linear model. Effect of DW-DESS-Cones on signal in phantom was tested by quadratic regression. Correlation was calculated between DW-DESS-Cones and DWI lesion-to-fibroglandular tissue signal ratios. Inter-observer agreement was assessed with Gwet's AC. Simulations predicted hyperintensity of lesions with DW-DESS-Cones but at a 3% to 67% lower degree than with DWI. Motion artifacts were reduced with DW-DESS-Cones versus DW-DESS-Cartesian (p < 0.05). Lesion-to-fibroglandular tissue signal ratios were not correlated between DW-DESS-Cones and DWI (r = 0.25, p = 0.38). Concordant hyperintensity/hypointensity was observed between DW-DESS-Cones and DWI in 11/14 lesions. DW-DESS-Cones improved sharpness, distortion, and overall image quality versus DWI. DW-DESS-Cones may be able to eliminate motion artifacts in the breast allowing for investigation of higher degrees of steady-state diffusion weighting. Malignant breast lesions in DW-DESS-Cones demonstrated hyperintensity with respect to surrounding tissue without an injection of contrast. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2. TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 1.

  View details for DOI 10.1002/jmri.27492

  View details for PubMedID 33382171