OBJECTIVES: To implement a retrospective intrinsic landmark-based (ILB) gating protocol for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and to compare its efficiency to non-gated, manually gated and extrinsically gated CEUS. METHODS: CEUS of the liver was performed in healthy mice (n = 5) and in NEMO knockout mice with dysplastic livers (n = 5). In healthy animals, first-pass kinetics of non-specific microbubbles was recorded. Knockout mice were analysed regarding retention of VEGFR2-specific microbubbles. For retrospective gating, a landmark which showed respiratory movement was encircled as a region of interest (ROI). During inspiration, the signal intensity within the ROI altered, which served as gating signal. To evaluate the accuracy, non-gated, extrinsically gated and ILB-gated time-intensity curves were created. For each curve, descriptive parameters were calculated and compared to the gold standard (manual frame-by-frame gating). RESULTS: No significant differences in the variation of ILB- and extrinsically gated time-intensity curves from the gold standard were observed. Non-gated data showed significantly higher variations. Also the variation of molecular ultrasound data was significantly lower for ILB-gated compared to non-gated data. CONCLUSION: ILB gating is a robust and easy method to improve data accuracy in functional and molecular ultrasound liver imaging. This technique can presumably be translated to contrast-enhanced ultrasound examinations in humans. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative analysis of the uptake of contrast agents during ultrasound is complex. • Intrinsic landmark-based gating (ILB) offers a simple implementable method for motion correction. • Results using ILB-gating are comparable to extrinsic gating using external biomonitoring devices. • Functional and molecular imaging of mobile organs will benefit from ILB gating.
OBJECTIVES: To implement a retrospective intrinsic landmark-based (ILB) gating protocol for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and to compare its efficiency to non-gated, manually gated and extrinsically gated CEUS. METHODS: CEUS of the liver was performed in healthy mice (n = 5) and in NEMO knockout mice with dysplastic livers (n = 5). In healthy animals, first-pass kinetics of non-specific microbubbles was recorded. Knockout mice were analysed regarding retention of VEGFR2-specific microbubbles. For retrospective gating, a landmark which showed respiratory movement was encircled as a region of interest (ROI). During inspiration, the signal intensity within the ROI altered, which served as gating signal. To evaluate the accuracy, non-gated, extrinsically gated and ILB-gated time-intensity curves were created. For each curve, descriptive parameters were calculated and compared to the gold standard (manual frame-by-frame gating). RESULTS: No significant differences in the variation of ILB- and extrinsically gated time-intensity curves from the gold standard were observed. Non-gated data showed significantly higher variations. Also the variation of molecular ultrasound data was significantly lower for ILB-gated compared to non-gated data. CONCLUSION: ILB gating is a robust and easy method to improve data accuracy in functional and molecular ultrasound liver imaging. This technique can presumably be translated to contrast-enhanced ultrasound examinations in humans. KEY POINTS: • Quantitative analysis of the uptake of contrast agents during ultrasound is complex. • Intrinsic landmark-based gating (ILB) offers a simple implementable method for motion correction. • Results using ILB-gating are comparable to extrinsic gating using external biomonitoring devices. • Functional and molecular imaging of mobile organs will benefit from ILB gating.
Authors: Byoung Heon Kang; Markus D Siegelin; Janet Plescia; Christopher M Raskett; David S Garlick; Takehiko Dohi; Jane B Lian; Gary S Stein; Lucia R Languino; Dario C Altieri Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2010-09-28 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: P M Paprottka; C C Cyran; P Zengel; J von Einem; B Wintersperger; K Nikolaou; M F Reiser; D A Clevert Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Jürgen K Willmann; Ramasamy Paulmurugan; Kai Chen; Olivier Gheysens; Martin Rodriguez-Porcel; Amelie M Lutz; Ian Y Chen; Xiaoyuan Chen; Sanjiv S Gambhir Journal: Radiology Date: 2008-01-07 Impact factor: 11.105