Literature DB >> 16237142

Brain tumors: full- and half-dose contrast-enhanced MR imaging at 3.0 T compared with 1.5 T--Initial Experience.

Carsten Krautmacher1, Winfried A Willinek, Henriette J Tschampa, Mark Born, Frank Träber, Jürgen Gieseke, Hans J Textor, Hans H Schild, Christiane K Kuhl.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively and intraindividually compare the effect of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging at a higher magnetic field strength (3.0 T) on contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) at different doses of a T1-shortening contrast agent in patients with contrast-enhancing brain lesions, with 1.5-T MR imaging as a reference standard.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained for all patient and volunteer studies. Twelve patients (six women, six men; mean age, 58 years; range, 29-76 years) with 12 enhancing brain lesions (11 patients with primary brain tumors and one with a solitary cerebral metastasis) underwent contrast material-enhanced MR imaging three times, on three separate days: once at 1.5 T with a full dose of 0.10 mmol/kg gadopentetate dimeglumine, once at 3.0 T with a full dose, and once at 3.0 T with half that dose, 0.05 mmol/kg. The same contrast-enhanced T1-weighted spin-echo images (repetition time msec/echo time msec, 500/12; section thickness, 5 mm; matrix, 256 x 205) were obtained at both 3.0 T and 1.5 T after prior optimization of parameters at 3.0 T. The number and conspicuity of enhancing brain lesions were assessed with blinded clinical image reading. Signal-to-noise ratio and CNR were determined with region of interest analysis of enhancing lesions and normal contralateral white matter. For 3.0 T with half the standard dose and with the full dose, CNR of lesions was intraindividually compared with CNR at 1.5 T with the full dose by using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.
RESULTS: At 3.0 T and full dose, CNR was 2.8-fold higher than that at 1.5 T and full dose (P < .001). At the same time, higher lesion conspicuity at clinical image reading was observed. With only half the standard dose, MR imaging at 3.0 T still yielded higher CNR (1.3-fold higher) than that with full dose at 1.5 T (P < .01).
CONCLUSION: With the same amount of contrast agent, MR imaging at 3.0 T offered a significantly higher CNR of enhancing cerebral lesions, compared with that at 1.5 T; even with the dose reduced by half, CNR was still higher at 3.0 T. RSNA, 2005

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16237142     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2373041672

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  25 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of the utility of 1.5 versus 3 Tesla magnetic resonance brain imaging in clinical practice and research.

Authors:  Joanna M Wardlaw; Will Brindle; Ana M Casado; Kirsten Shuler; Moira Henderson; Brenda Thomas; Jennifer Macfarlane; Susana Muñoz Maniega; Katherine Lymer; Zoe Morris; Cyril Pernet; William Nailon; Trevor Ahearn; Abdul Nashirudeen Mumuni; Carlos Mugruza; John McLean; Goultchira Chakirova; Yuehui Terry Tao; Johanna Simpson; Andrew C Stanfield; Harriet Johnston; Jehill Parikh; Natalie A Royle; Janet De Wilde; Mark E Bastin; Nick Weir; Andrew Farrall; Maria C Valdes Hernandez
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-06-09       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  High spatial resolution contrast-enhanced MR angiography of the supraaortic arteries using the quadrature body coil at 3.0T: a feasibility study.

Authors:  Winfried A Willinek; Thomas Bayer; Jürgen Gieseke; Marcus von Falkenhausen; Torsten Sommer; Romhild Hoogeveen; Kai Wilhelm; Horst Urbach; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-08-30       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Higher sensitivity in the detection of inflammatory brain lesions in patients with clinically isolated syndromes suggestive of multiple sclerosis using high field MRI: an intraindividual comparison of 1.5 T with 3.0 T.

Authors:  Mike P Wattjes; Götz G Lutterbey; Michael Harzheim; Jürgen Gieseke; Frank Träber; Luisa Klotz; Thomas Klockgether; Hans H Schild
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2006-04-29       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Brain Tumor-Enhancement Visualization and Morphometric Assessment: A Comparison of MPRAGE, SPACE, and VIBE MRI Techniques.

Authors:  L Danieli; G C Riccitelli; D Distefano; E Prodi; E Ventura; A Cianfoni; A Kaelin-Lang; M Reinert; E Pravatà
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.825

Review 5.  Brain metastases: neuroimaging.

Authors:  Whitney B Pope
Journal:  Handb Clin Neurol       Date:  2018

6.  Additional MR contrast dosage for radiologists' diagnostic performance in detecting brain metastases: a systematic observer study at 3 T.

Authors:  Osamu Togao; Akio Hiwatashi; Koji Yamashita; Kazufumi Kikuchi; Takashi Yoshiura; Hiroshi Honda
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2014-06-24       Impact factor: 2.374

7.  Breast MRI at 7 Tesla with a bilateral coil and robust fat suppression.

Authors:  Ryan Brown; Pippa Storey; Christian Geppert; KellyAnne McGorty; Ana Paula Klautau Leite; James Babb; Daniel K Sodickson; Graham C Wiggins; Linda Moy
Journal:  J Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2013-10-07       Impact factor: 4.813

8.  Comparative analysis of fluorescent angiography, computed tomographic angiography and magnetic resonance angiography for planning autologous breast reconstruction.

Authors:  Michael P Chae; David J Hunter-Smith; Warren Matthew Rozen
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2015-04

Review 9.  MRI evaluation and safety in the developing brain.

Authors:  Shannon Tocchio; Beth Kline-Fath; Emanuel Kanal; Vincent J Schmithorst; Ashok Panigrahy
Journal:  Semin Perinatol       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 3.300

Review 10.  High field MRI in the diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: high field-high yield?

Authors:  Mike P Wattjes; Frederik Barkhof
Journal:  Neuroradiology       Date:  2009-03-11       Impact factor: 2.804

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.