Investigative Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Korean Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine (대한자기공명의과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Quantification of Gadolinium Concentration Using GRE and UTE Sequences

  • Park, So Hee (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Nam, Yoonho (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Choi, Hyun Seok (Department of Radiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Woo, Seung Tae (Bayer Korea)
  • Received : 2017.07.06
  • Accepted : 2017.08.28
  • Published : 2017.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: To compare different MR sequences for quantification of gadolinium concentration. Materials and Methods: Gadolinium contrast agents were diluted into 36 different concentrations. They were scanned using gradient echo (GRE) and ultrashort echo time (UTE) and R1, $R2^*$ and phase values were estimated from collected data. For analysis, ROI masks were made for each concentration and then ROI value was measured by mean and standard deviation from the estimated quantitative maps. Correlation analysis was performed and correlation coefficient was calculated. Results: Using GRE sequence, R1 showed a strong linear correlation at concentrations of 10 mM or less, and $R2^*$ showed a strong linear correlation between 10 to 100 mM. The phase of GRE generally exhibited a negative linear relationship for concentrations of 100 mM or less. In the case of UTE, the phase had a strong negative linear relationship at concentrations 100 mM or above. Conclusion: R1, which was calculated by conventional GRE, showed a high performance of quantification for lower concentrations, with a correlation coefficient of 0.966 (10 mM or less). $R2^*$ showed stronger potential for higher concentrations with a correlation coefficient of 0.984 (10 to 100 mM), and UTE phase showed potential for even higher concentrations with a correlation coefficient of 0.992 (100 mM or above).

Keywords

References

  1. Padhani AR, Husband JE. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI studies in oncology with an emphasis on quantification, validation and human studies. Clin Radiol 2001;56:607-620 https://doi.org/10.1053/crad.2001.0762
  2. Kuo PH, Kanal E, Abu-Alfa AK, Cowper SE. Gadoliniumbased MR contrast agents and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis. Radiology 2007;242:647-649 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2423061640
  3. Kanda T, Fukusato T, Matsuda M, et al. Gadolinium-based contrast agent accumulates in the brain Even in subjects without severe renal dysfunction: evaluation of autopsy brain specimens with inductively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. Radiology 2015;276:228-232 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142690
  4. Caravan P. Strategies for increasing the sensitivity of gadolinium based MRI contrast agents. Chem Soc Rev 2006;35:512-523 https://doi.org/10.1039/b510982p
  5. Trattnig S, Marlovits S, Gebetsroither S, et al. Threedimensional delayed gadolinium-enhanced MRI of cartilage (dGEMRIC) for in vivo evaluation of reparative cartilage after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte transplantation at 3.0T: Preliminary results. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007;26:974-982 https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.21091
  6. Sasaki M, Shibata E, Kanbara Y, Ehara S. Enhancement effects and relaxivities of gadolinium-DTPA at 1.5 versus 3 Tesla: a phantom study. Magn Reson Med Sci 2005;4:145-149 https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.4.145
  7. Robson MD, Gatehouse PD, Bydder M, Bydder GM. Magnetic resonance: an introduction to ultrashort TE (UTE) imaging. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003;27:825-846 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200311000-00001
  8. Hittmair K, Gomiscek G, Langenberger K, Recht M, Imhof H, Kramer J. Method for the quantitative assessment of contrast agent uptake in dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI. Magn Reson Med 1994;31:567-571 https://doi.org/10.1002/mrm.1910310516
  9. Li W, Avram AV, Wu B, Xiao X, Liu C. Integrated Laplacianbased phase unwrapping and background phase removal for quantitative susceptibility mapping. NMR Biomed 2014;27:219-227 https://doi.org/10.1002/nbm.3056
  10. Poselt E, Kloust H, Tromsdorf U, et al. Relaxivity optimization of a PEGylated iron-oxide-based negative magnetic resonance contrast agent for T(2)-weighted spinecho imaging. ACS Nano 2012;6:1619-1624 https://doi.org/10.1021/nn204591r
  11. Sosnovik DE, Nahrendorf M, Weissleder R. Magnetic nanoparticles for MR imaging: agents, techniques and cardiovascular applications. Basic Res Cardiol 2008;103:122-130 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00395-008-0710-7

Cited by

  1. Efficient Experimental Design for Measuring Magnetic Susceptibility of Arbitrarily Shaped Materials by MRI vol.22, pp.3, 2017, https://doi.org/10.13104/imri.2018.22.3.141
  2. Analysis of Diluted Contrast Medium Injection Effect in Magnetic Resonance Angiography on the Head and Neck Imaging vol.30, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.31159/ksmrt.2020.30.2.25
  3. MRI and Quantitative Magnetic Susceptibility Maps of the Brain after Serial Administration of Gadobutrol: A Longitudinal Follow-up Study vol.297, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192579