Literature DB >> 19175092

In vivo quantification of contrast agent concentration using the induced magnetic field for time-resolved arterial input function measurement with MRI.

Ludovic de Rochefort1, Thanh Nguyen, Ryan Brown, Pascal Spincemaille, Grace Choi, Jonathan Weinsaft, Martin R Prince, Yi Wang.   

Abstract

For pharmacokinetic modeling of tissue physiology, there is great interest in measuring the arterial input function (AIF) from dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) using paramagnetic contrast agents. Due to relaxation effects, the measured signal is a nonlinear function of the injected contrast agent concentration and depends on sequence parameters, system calibration, and time-of-flight effects, making it difficult to accurately measure the AIF during the first pass. Paramagnetic contrast agents also affect susceptibility and modify the magnetic field in proportion to their concentration. This information is contained in the MR signal phase which is discarded in a typical image reconstruction. However, quantifying AIF through contrast agent susceptibility induced phase changes is made difficult by the fact that the induced magnetic field is nonlocal and depends upon the contrast agent spatial distribution and thus on organ and vessel shapes. In this article, the contrast agent susceptibility was quantified through inversion of magnetic field shifts using a piece-wise constant model. Its feasibility is demonstrated by a determination of the AIF from the susceptibility-induced field changes of an intravenous bolus. After in vitro validation, a time-resolved two-dimensional (2D) gradient echo scan, triggered to diastole, was performed in vivo on the aortic arch during a bolus injection of 0.1 mmol/kg Gd-DTPA. An approximate geometrical model of the aortic arch constructed from the magnitude images was used to calculate the spatial variation of the field associated with the bolus. In 14 subjects, Gd concentration curves were measured dynamically (one measurement per heart beat) and indirectly validated by independent 2D cine phase contrast flow rate measurements. Flow rate measurements using indicator conservation with this novel quantitative susceptibility imaging technique were found to be in good agreement with those obtained from the cine phase contrast measurements in all subjects. Contrary to techniques that rely on intensity, the accuracy of this signal phase based method is insensitive to factors influencing signal intensity such as flip angle, coil sensitivity, relaxation changes, and time-of-flight effects extending the range of pulse sequences and contrast doses for which quantitative DCE-MRI can be applied.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19175092     DOI: 10.1118/1.3002309

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Phys        ISSN: 0094-2405            Impact factor:   4.071


  25 in total

Review 1.  Absolute quantification of perfusion using dynamic susceptibility contrast MRI: pitfalls and possibilities.

Authors:  Linda Knutsson; Freddy Ståhlberg; Ronnie Wirestam
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2009-12-04       Impact factor: 2.310

2.  Positive contrast with therapeutic iron nanoparticles at 4.7 T.

Authors:  Monica Sigovan; Misara Hamoudeh; Achraf Al Faraj; Delphine Charpigny; Hatem Fessi; Emmanuelle Canet-Soulas
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2011-05-24       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Automated adaptive preconditioner for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Zhe Liu; Yan Wen; Pascal Spincemaille; Shun Zhang; Yihao Yao; Thanh D Nguyen; Yi Wang
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2019-08-11       Impact factor: 4.668

4.  Susceptibility-based analysis of dynamic gadolinium bolus perfusion MRI.

Authors:  David Bonekamp; Peter B Barker; Richard Leigh; Peter C M van Zijl; Xu Li
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.668

5.  Phase-corrected bipolar gradients in multi-echo gradient-echo sequences for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Jianqi Li; Shixin Chang; Tian Liu; Hongwei Jiang; Fang Dong; Mengchao Pei; Qianfeng Wang; Yi Wang
Journal:  MAGMA       Date:  2014-11-20       Impact factor: 2.310

6.  Susceptibility-Based Neuroimaging: Standard Methods, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions.

Authors:  Salil Soman; Jose A Bregni; Berkin Bilgic; Ursula Nemec; Audrey Fan; Zhe Liu; Robert L Barry; Jiang Du; Keith Main; Jerome Yesavage; Maheen M Adamson; Michael Moseley; Yi Wang
Journal:  Curr Radiol Rep       Date:  2017-02-14

7.  Morphology enabled dipole inversion for quantitative susceptibility mapping using structural consistency between the magnitude image and the susceptibility map.

Authors:  Jing Liu; Tian Liu; Ludovic de Rochefort; James Ledoux; Ildar Khalidov; Weiwei Chen; A John Tsiouris; Cynthia Wisnieff; Pascal Spincemaille; Martin R Prince; Yi Wang
Journal:  Neuroimage       Date:  2011-09-08       Impact factor: 6.556

8.  Multicenter reproducibility of quantitative susceptibility mapping in a gadolinium phantom using MEDI+0 automatic zero referencing.

Authors:  Kofi Deh; Keigo Kawaji; Marjolein Bulk; Louise Van Der Weerd; Emelie Lind; Pascal Spincemaille; Kelly McCabe Gillen; Johan Van Auderkerke; Yi Wang; Thanh D Nguyen
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2018-10-04       Impact factor: 4.668

9.  Preconditioned total field inversion (TFI) method for quantitative susceptibility mapping.

Authors:  Zhe Liu; Youngwook Kee; Dong Zhou; Yi Wang; Pascal Spincemaille
Journal:  Magn Reson Med       Date:  2016-07-28       Impact factor: 4.668

10.  Comparison of the Diagnostic Accuracy of DSC- and Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced MRI in the Preoperative Grading of Astrocytomas.

Authors:  T B Nguyen; G O Cron; K Perdrizet; K Bezzina; C H Torres; S Chakraborty; J Woulfe; G H Jansen; J Sinclair; R E Thornhill; C Foottit; B Zanette; I G Cameron
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.825

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.