PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of using chemical shift magnetic resonance (MR) imaging fat-water separation methods for quantitative estimation of transcatheter lipiodol delivery to liver tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were performed in accordance with institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines. Proton nuclear MR spectroscopy was first performed to identify lipiodol spectral peaks and relative amplitudes. Next, phantoms were constructed with increasing lipiodol-water volume fractions. A multiecho chemical shift-based fat-water separation method was used to quantify lipiodol concentration within each phantom. Six rats served as controls; 18 rats underwent catheterization with digital subtraction angiography guidance for intraportal infusion of a 15%, 30%, or 50% by volume lipiodol-saline mixture. MR imaging measurements were used to quantify lipiodol delivery to each rat liver. Lipiodol concentration maps were reconstructed by using both single-peak and multipeak chemical shift models. Intraclass and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for statistical comparison of MR imaging-based lipiodol concentration and volume measurements to reference standards (known lipiodol phantom compositions and the infused lipiodol dose during rat studies). RESULTS: Both single-peak and multipeak measurements were well correlated to phantom lipiodol concentrations (r(2) > 0.99). Lipiodol volume measurements were progressively and significantly higher when comparing between animals receiving different doses (P < .05 for each comparison). MR imaging-based lipiodol volume measurements strongly correlated with infused dose (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.93, P < .001) with both single- and multipeak approaches. CONCLUSION: Chemical shift MR imaging fat-water separation methods can be used for quantitative measurements of lipiodol delivery to liver tissues.
PURPOSE: To demonstrate the feasibility of using chemical shift magnetic resonance (MR) imaging fat-water separation methods for quantitative estimation of transcatheter lipiodol delivery to liver tissues. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Studies were performed in accordance with institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines. Proton nuclear MR spectroscopy was first performed to identify lipiodol spectral peaks and relative amplitudes. Next, phantoms were constructed with increasing lipiodol-water volume fractions. A multiecho chemical shift-based fat-water separation method was used to quantify lipiodol concentration within each phantom. Six rats served as controls; 18 rats underwent catheterization with digital subtraction angiography guidance for intraportal infusion of a 15%, 30%, or 50% by volume lipiodol-saline mixture. MR imaging measurements were used to quantify lipiodol delivery to each rat liver. Lipiodol concentration maps were reconstructed by using both single-peak and multipeak chemical shift models. Intraclass and Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for statistical comparison of MR imaging-based lipiodol concentration and volume measurements to reference standards (known lipiodol phantom compositions and the infused lipiodol dose during rat studies). RESULTS: Both single-peak and multipeak measurements were well correlated to phantom lipiodol concentrations (r(2) > 0.99). Lipiodol volume measurements were progressively and significantly higher when comparing between animals receiving different doses (P < .05 for each comparison). MR imaging-based lipiodol volume measurements strongly correlated with infused dose (intraclass correlation coefficients > 0.93, P < .001) with both single- and multipeak approaches. CONCLUSION: Chemical shift MR imaging fat-water separation methods can be used for quantitative measurements of lipiodol delivery to liver tissues.
Authors: Yang Guo; Yue Zhang; Ning Jin; Rachel Klein; Jodi Nicolai; Robert J Lewandowski; Robert K Ryu; Reed A Omary; Andrew C Larson Journal: Invest Radiol Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 6.016
Authors: Mark Bydder; Takeshi Yokoo; Gavin Hamilton; Michael S Middleton; Alyssa D Chavez; Jeffrey B Schwimmer; Joel E Lavine; Claude B Sirlin Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2008-02-21 Impact factor: 2.546
Authors: N Cem Balci; Alex S Befeler; B Kirke Bieneman; Rana Fattahi; Sezer Saglam; Necat Havlioglu Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2009-04-21 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Jonathan K Park; Thomas K Rhee; Ty A Cashen; Wanyong Shin; Scott A Resnick; James A Gehl; Brian E Schirf; Dingxin Wang; Andrew C Larson; Timothy J Carroll; Reed A Omary Journal: J Vasc Interv Radiol Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 3.464
Authors: Niraj J Gusani; Fady K Balaa; Jennifer L Steel; David A Geller; J Wallis Marsh; Albert B Zajko; Brian I Carr; T Clark Gamblin Journal: J Gastrointest Surg Date: 2007-09-11 Impact factor: 3.452
Authors: Catherine D G Hines; Huanzhou Yu; Ann Shimakawa; Charles A McKenzie; Jean H Brittain; Scott B Reeder Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2009-11 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Soudabeh Kargar; Eric A Borisch; Adam T Froemming; Akira Kawashima; Lance A Mynderse; Eric G Stinson; Joshua D Trzasko; Stephen J Riederer Journal: Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2017-12-24 Impact factor: 2.546