PURPOSE: During recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using hyperpolarised (HP) 3He gas has emerged as a promising new method for the imaging of lung ventilation. However, systematic comparisons with nuclear medicine techniques have not yet been performed. The aim of this study was to compare ventilation imaging methods in 26 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and nine lung healthy volunteers. METHODS: HP 3He MRI, 81mKr single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and pulmonary function tests were performed. The three scans were scored visually as percentage of non-ventilated/diseased lung, and a computer-based objective measure of the ventilated volume in HP 3He MRI and 81mKr SPECT and an emphysema index in HRCT were calculated. RESULTS: We found a good correlation between HP 3He MRI and 81mKr SPECT for both visual defect score (r=0.80, p<0.0001) and objective estimate of ventilation (r=0.45, p=0.0157). In addition, both scans were well correlated with reference methods for the diagnosis of emphysema (pulmonary function test and HRCT). The defect scores were largest on 81mKr SPECT (the score on HP 3He MRI was one-third less than that on 81mKr SPECT), but the difference was reduced after normalisation for different breathing depths (HP 3He MRI at total lung capacity; 81mKr SPECT at tidal breathing at functional residual capacity). CONCLUSION: HP 3He MRI provides detailed ventilation distribution images and defect scores are comparable on HP 3He MRI and 81mKr SPECT. Additionally, new insights into the regional pulmonary microstructure via the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements are provided by HP 3He MRI. HP 3He MRI is a promising new diagnostic tool for the assessment of ventilation distribution.
PURPOSE: During recent years, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using hyperpolarised (HP) 3He gas has emerged as a promising new method for the imaging of lung ventilation. However, systematic comparisons with nuclear medicine techniques have not yet been performed. The aim of this study was to compare ventilation imaging methods in 26 patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and nine lung healthy volunteers. METHODS: HP 3He MRI, 81mKr single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), high-resolution computed tomography (HRCT) and pulmonary function tests were performed. The three scans were scored visually as percentage of non-ventilated/diseased lung, and a computer-based objective measure of the ventilated volume in HP 3He MRI and 81mKr SPECT and an emphysema index in HRCT were calculated. RESULTS: We found a good correlation between HP 3He MRI and 81mKr SPECT for both visual defect score (r=0.80, p<0.0001) and objective estimate of ventilation (r=0.45, p=0.0157). In addition, both scans were well correlated with reference methods for the diagnosis of emphysema (pulmonary function test and HRCT). The defect scores were largest on 81mKr SPECT (the score on HP 3He MRI was one-third less than that on 81mKr SPECT), but the difference was reduced after normalisation for different breathing depths (HP 3He MRI at total lung capacity; 81mKr SPECT at tidal breathing at functional residual capacity). CONCLUSION: HP 3He MRI provides detailed ventilation distribution images and defect scores are comparable on HP 3He MRI and 81mKr SPECT. Additionally, new insights into the regional pulmonary microstructure via the apparent diffusion coefficient measurements are provided by HP 3He MRI. HP 3He MRI is a promising new diagnostic tool for the assessment of ventilation distribution.
Authors: E E de Lange; J P Mugler; J R Brookeman; J Knight-Scott; J D Truwit; C D Teates; T M Daniel; P L Bogorad; G D Cates Journal: Radiology Date: 1999-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: G Peces-Barba; J Ruiz-Cabello; Y Cremillieux; I Rodríguez; D Dupuich; V Callot; M Ortega; M L Rubio Arbo; M Cortijo; N Gonzalez-Mangado Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Colm J McMahon; Jonathan D Dodd; Catherine Hill; Neil Woodhouse; Jim M Wild; Stan Fichele; Charles G Gallagher; Stephen J Skehan; Edwin J R van Beek; James B Masterson Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2006-07-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Rohan S Virgincar; Zackary I Cleveland; S Sivaram Kaushik; Matthew S Freeman; John Nouls; Gary P Cofer; Santiago Martinez-Jimenez; Mu He; Monica Kraft; Jan Wolber; H Page McAdams; Bastiaan Driehuys Journal: NMR Biomed Date: 2012-10-13 Impact factor: 4.044
Authors: Tokihiro Yamamoto; Sven Kabus; Cristian Lorenz; Erik Mittra; Julian C Hong; Melody Chung; Neville Eclov; Jacqueline To; Maximilian Diehn; Billy W Loo; Paul J Keall Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2014-08-04 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Emma L Bates; Christopher M Bragg; Jim M Wild; Matthew Q F Hatton; Rob H Ireland Journal: Radiother Oncol Date: 2009-06-22 Impact factor: 6.280
Authors: Rob H Ireland; Chris M Bragg; Mark McJury; Neil Woodhouse; Stan Fichele; Edwin J R van Beek; Jim M Wild; Matthew Q Hatton Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2007-05-01 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Rob H Ireland; Neil Woodhouse; Nigel Hoggard; James A Swinscoe; Bernadette H Foran; Matthew Q Hatton; Jim M Wild Journal: Phys Med Biol Date: 2008-10-09 Impact factor: 3.609